Skip to main content

Abstract

Costs associated with totally implantable venous access devices (TIVAD) are variable and depend on multiple factors. TIVAD costs can be categorized into four types, insertion, maintenance, removal and complications. Variation in TIVAD costs are due to regional and national variation in expenses, contractural agreements, healthcare system variation, cost bundling, and variable accounting methods. They can be difficult to reliably track and there is wide variation in the reported costs in the literature. Costs for complications of TIVAD insertion and use can be significant and add to the total cost of TIVAD. Despite the costs, the convenience and improved quality of life for patients who need long term venous access make TIVAD an important part of their treatment programs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Hind D, Calvert N, McWilliams R et al (2003) Ultrasonic locating devices for central venous cannulation: meta-analysis. BMJ 327:361

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Calvert N, Hind D, McWilliams R et al (2004) Ultrasound for central venous cannulation: economic evaluation of cost-effectiveness. Anaesthesia 59:1116–1120

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bold RJ, Winchester DJ, Madary AR et al (1998) Prospective, randomized trial of Doppler-assisted subclavian vein catheterization. Arch Surg 133:1089–1093

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Biffi R, De Braud F, Orsi F et al (2001) A randomized, prospective trial of central venous ports connected to standard open-ended or Groshong catheters in adult oncology patients. Cancer 92:1204–1212

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Pratt RJ, Pellowe CM, Wilson JA et al (2007) epic2: National evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections in NHS hospitals in England. J Hosp Infect 65[suppl]:S1–S64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dezfulian C, Lavelle J, Nallamothu BK et al (2003) Rates of infection for single-lumen versus multilumen central venous catheters: a meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 31:2385–2390

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Farkas JC, Liu N, Bleriot JP et al (1992) Single versus triple-lumen central catheter-related sepsis: a prospective randomized study in a critically ill population. Am J Med 93:277–282

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Funaki B, Szymski GX, Hackworth CA et al (1997) Radiologic placement of subcutaneous infusion chest ports for long term central venous access. Am J Radiol 169:1431–1434

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. McBride KD, Fisher R, Warnock N et al (1997) A comparitive analysis of radiologic and surgical placement of central venous catheters. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 20:17–22

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hancock HR, Connolly BL, McMahon M et al (2010) Cost-effectiveness analysis of implantable venous access device insertion using interventional radiologic versus conventional operating room methods in pediatric patients with cancer. J Vasc Interv Radiol 5:677–684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sticca RP, Dewing BD, Harris JD (2009) Outcomes of surgical and radiologic placed implantable central venous access ports. Am J Surg 198:829–833

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bishop L, Dougherty L, Bodenham A et al (2007) Guidelines on the insertion and management of central venous access devices in adults. Int J Lab Hematol 29:261–278

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Infusion Nurses Society (2006) Infusion nursing standards of practice. J Infus Nurs 29[suppl]:S1–S92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Carlo JT, Lamont JP, McCarty TM et al (2004) A prospective randomized trial demonstrating valved implantable ports have fewer complications and lower overall cost than nonvalved implantable ports. Am J Surg 188:722–727

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Biffi R, de Braud F, Orsi F et al (1998) Totally implantable central venous access ports for long term chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 9:767–773

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Scaife CL, Gross ME, Mone MC et al (2010) Antibiotic prophylaxis in the placement of totally implanted central venous access ports. Am J Surgery 200:719–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert P. Sticca .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Italia

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sticca, R.P., Dewing, B.D., Harris, J.D. (2012). Cost Issues. In: Di Carlo, I., Biffi, R. (eds) Totally Implantable Venous Access Devices. Springer, Milano. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-2373-4_36

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-2373-4_36

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Milano

  • Print ISBN: 978-88-470-2372-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-88-470-2373-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics