4.4 Article

Attributable cost and length of stay for patients with central venous catheter - Associated bloodstream infection in Mexico city intensive care units: A prospective, matched analysis

Journal

INFECTION CONTROL AND HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 28, Issue 1, Pages 31-35

Publisher

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/510812

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. No information is available about the financial impact of central venous catheter (CVC)-associated bloodstream infection (BSI) in Mexico. Objective. To calculate the costs associated with BSI in intensive care units ( ICUs) in Mexico City. Design. An 18-month ( June 2002 through November 2003), prospective, nested case-control study of patients with and patients without BSI. Setting. Adult ICUs in 3 hospitals in Mexico City. Patients and methods. A total of 55 patients with BSI ( case patients) and 55 patients without BSI ( control patients) were compared with respect to hospital, type of ICU, year of hospital admission, length of ICU stay, sex, age, and mean severity of illness score. Information about the length of ICU stay was obtained prospectively during daily rounds. The daily cost of ICU stay was provided by the finance department of each hospital. The cost of antibiotics prescribed for BSI was provided by the hospitals' pharmacy departments. Results. For case patients, the mean extra length of stay was 6.1 days, the mean extra cost of antibiotics was $598, the mean extra hospital cost was $11,591, and the attributable extra mortality was 20%. Conclusions. In this study, the duration of ICU stay for patients with central venous catheter-associated BSI was significantly longer than that for control patients, resulting in increased healthcare costs and a higher attributable mortality. These conclusions support the need to implement preventive measures for hospitalized patients with central venous catheters in Mexico.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available