Análisis coste-efectividad de dispositivos sanitarios diseñados para prevenir exposiciones percutáneas

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Objetivo: Evaluar la eficiencia de sustituir algunos dispositivos médicos por otros diseñados para prevenir exposiciones percutáneas (EP). Métodos: Se han estimado las relaciones coste-efectividad de sustituir algunos dispositivos por otros diseñados para prevenir EP: se han considerado los costes de adquisición y de la asistencia a una EP; el número de EP prevenibles por cada dispositivo se ha estimado a partir de las 252 exposiciones ocupacionales notificadas por el personal de un hospital de 1.300 camas de marzo de 2002 a febrero de 2003. Se ha calculado la relación entre el coste adicional de los dispositivos alternativos y el número de EP evitables de alto riesgo (las que cumplían 2 o más de los siguientes: EP moderadamente profunda o profunda, por objeto insertado en vaso, o por objeto expuesto a la sangre). Resultados: Orden de los dispositivos según la relación coste-efectividad: aguja con resguardo para catéter implantado (-2,65 €/EP evitada), seguida por jeringa con resguardo (869,79 €/EP), aguja con aletas con resguardo, equipo de perfusión con válvulas y catéter endovenoso periférico con retracción del fiador. Orden según relación entre coste adicional y número de EP de alto riesgo evitadas: aguja para acceso a catéter implantado, seguida por aguja con aletas, jeringa para aguja hipodérmica, catéter endovenoso y equipo de infusión con válvulas. Conclusiones: El ahorro en asistencia a EP compensa el coste adicional de algunos dispositivos diseñados para prevenirlas. Un análisis coste-efectividad ayuda a establecer prioridades, pero debe tener en cuenta el riesgo de las EP asociadas con cada dispositivo.

Translated abstract

Objective: To assess the efficiency of the replacement of several medical devices by engineered sharp injury (SI) prevention devices (ESIPDs). Methods: The cost-effectiveness ratios of the replacement of medical devices in use by ESIPDs were estimated: their purchasing costs and the direct costs of sharp injury care were taken into account; the number of SI avoidable by each ESIPD was estimated from the 252 occupational SI notified by healthcare workers at a 1,300 bed hospital from March 2002 to February 2003. The relationship between ESIPD additional costs and the number of high-risk SI was estimated (SI were classified as high-risk if they met two or more of the following criteria: moderately-deep or deep injury, injury with a device previously inserted in an artery or vein, or with a device exposed to blood). Results: ESIPDs order according to cost-effectiveness ratio: safety needle for implanted ports (-2.65 €/SI avoided), followed by syringes with protective shield (869.79 €/SI), resheathable winged steel needles, needleless administration sets, and short catheters with protective encasement. ESIPDs order according to relationship between additional costs and number of high-risk sharp injuries avoided: safety needles for implanted ports, followed by winged steel needles, hypodermic syringes, short catheter and needleless administration sets. Conclusions: Savings in SI care outweigh additional costs of certain ESIPDs. Cost-effectiveness analysis is useful in assigning priorities; however the risks of SI by every device must be taken into account.

Related collections

Most cited references 48

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Updated U.S. Public Health Service Guidelines for the Management of Occupational Exposures to HBV, HCV, and HIV and Recommendations for Postexposure Prophylaxis.

(2001)

This report updates and consolidates all previous U.S. Public Health Service recommendations for the management of health-care personnel (HCP) who have occupational exposure to blood and other body fluids that might contain hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Recommendations for HBV postexposure management include initiation of the hepatitis B vaccine series to any susceptible, unvaccinated person who sustains an occupational blood or body fluid exposure. Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) with hepatitis B immune globulin (HBIG) and/or hepatitis B vaccine series should be considered for occupational exposures after evaluation of the hepatitis B surface antigen status of the source and the vaccination and vaccine-response status of the exposed person. Guidance is provided to clinicians and exposed HCP for selecting the appropriate HBV PEP. Immune globulin and antiviral agents (e.g., interferon with or without ribavirin) are not recommended for PEP of hepatitis C. For HCV postexposure management, the HCV status of the source and the exposed person should be determined, and for HCP exposed to an HCV positive source, follow-up HCV testing should be performed to determine if infection develops. Recommendations for HIV PEP include a basic 4-week regimen of two drugs (zidovudine [ZDV] and lamivudine [3TC]; 3TC and stavudine [d4T]; or didanosine [ddI] and d4T) for most HIV exposures and an expanded regimen that includes the addition of a third drug for HIV exposures that pose an increased risk for transmission. When the source person's virus is known or suspected to be resistant to one or more of the drugs considered for the PEP regimen, the selection of drugs to which the source person's virus is unlikely to be resistant is recommended. In addition, this report outlines several special circumstances (e.g., delayed exposure report, unknown source person, pregnancy in the exposed person, resistance of the source virus to antiretroviral agents, or toxicity of the PEP regimen) when consultation with local experts and/or the National Clinicians' Post-Exposure Prophylaxis Hotline ([PEPline] 1-888-448-4911) is advised. Occupational exposures should be considered urgent medical concerns to ensure timely postexposure management and administration of HBIG, hepatitis B vaccine, and/or HIV PEP.

0 comments Cited 109 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

A review of sharps injuries and preventative strategies.

J C Trim, T S J Elliott (2003)

Exposure to bloodborne pathogens from sharps injuries continues to pose a significant risk to healthcare workers (HCW). The number of sharps injuries sustained by HCW is still unclear, primarily due to under-reporting. In this review a mean rate of 4.0% (range 1.0-6.2%) sharps injuries per 10000 HCW was calculated from eight studies involving more than 7000 HCW. Nurses and doctors were most at risk of sharps injuries, frequently from hollow-bore needles. Approaches to reduce this risk have included education and training on the safe handling and disposal of sharp devices, awareness campaigns and legislative action. More recently, preventative strategies have focused on needle protective devices, which may reduce the rate of sharps injuries. Introducing needle protective devices should be considered particularly in high-risk areas, after training, education, evaluation and cost-benefit analysis.