医学
端口(电路理论)
背景(考古学)
静脉通路
导管
更安全的
成本效益
外科
急诊医学
风险分析(工程)
计算机安全
计算机科学
生物
电气工程
工程类
古生物学
作者
Robert Heggie,Nishant Jaiswal,Elaine McCartney,Jon Moss,Tobias Menne,Brian Jones,Kathleen Boyd,Eileen Soulis,Neil Hawkins,Olívia Wu
标识
DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2023.09.2996
摘要
Patients undergoing long-term anticancer therapy typically require one of 3 venous access devices: Hickman-type device (HICK), peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC), or implantable chest wall port (PORT). Recent evidence has shown PORT is safer and improves patient satisfaction. However, PORT did not show improvement in quality-adjusted life-years and was more expensive. Decisions regarding cost-effectiveness in the United Kingdom are typically informed by a cost-per-quality-adjusted life-year metric. However, this approach is limited in its ability to capture the full range of relevant outcomes, especially in the context of medical devices. This study assessed the potential cost-effectiveness of HICK, PICC, and PORT in routine clinical practice.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI