4.5 Article

Hospital cost of Clostridium difficile infection including the contribution of recurrences in French acute-care hospitals

期刊

JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL INFECTION
卷 91, 期 2, 页码 117-122

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2015.06.017

关键词

Case-control study; Clostridium difficile infection; Costs analysis; Recurrence

资金

  1. Astellas Pharma SAS (France)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The impact of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) on healthcare costs is significant due to the extra costs of associated inpatient care. However, the specific contribution of recurrences has rarely been studied. Aim: The aim of this study was to estimate the hospital costs of CDI and the fraction attributable to recurrences in French acute-care hospitals. Methods: A retrospective study was performed for 2011 on a sample of 12 large acute-care hospitals. CDI costs were estimated from both hospital and public insurance perspectives. For each stay, CDI additional costs were estimated by comparison to controls without CDI extracted from the national DRG (diagnosis-related group) database and matched on DRG, age and sex. When CDI was the primary diagnosis, the full cost of stay was used. Findings: A total of 1067 bacteriological cases of CDI were identified corresponding to 979 stays involving 906 different patients. Recurrence(s) were identified in 118 (12%) of these stays with 51.7% of them having occurred within the same stay as the index episode. Their mean length of stay was 63.8 days compared to 25.1 days for stays with an index case only. The mean extra cost per stay with CDI was estimated at (sic)9,575 (median: (sic)7,514). The extra cost of CDI in public acute-care hospitals was extrapolated to (sic)163.1 million at the national level, of which 12.5% was attributable to recurrences. Conclusion: The economic burden of CDI is substantial and directly impacts healthcare systems in France. (C) 2015 The Healthcare Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据