Seven-Day vs Four-Day Infusion Set Replacement Interval and Catheter-Related Infections
Authors' conclusion
In this economic evaluation of the RSVP trial, a small increase in CRBSI risk was associated with large cost-savings and substantial health losses at the population level.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with central venous access devices and peripheral arterial catheters in the RSVP trial, 10 Australian hospitals, 2011–2016
- Participants
- 2,941 RSVP trial patients
- Comparison
- 7-day vs standard 4-day infusion set replacement interval
- Primary endpoint
- Expected change in cost and effectiveness outcomes (probabilistic sensitivity analysis)
Methodological detailsdecision tree model, health care perspective, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, value of information analysis, multicentre (10 Australian hospitals), Model developed August 26, 2025; data analysed December 12, 2016, to April 23, 2019
- Decision tree model
- Health care perspective
- Probabilistic sensitivity analysis
- Value of information analysis
- Multicentre (10 Australian hospitals)
- Model developed August 26, 2025; data analysed December 12, 2016, to April 23, 2019
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Cost and health outcomes (population level) · annual
- 7-day strategy annual savings from fewer set changes, approximately A$52 million (95% UI)
- -A$42 841 427 to A$181 823 300
- Additional costs for treating CRBSI, A$3.1 million (95% UI)
- -A$6 974 903 to A$14 099 754
- Additional infections 395
- −945 to 1739 (95% UI)
- Excess deaths 103
- −246 to 452 (95% UI)
- Life-years lost 1724
- −4199 to 7925 (95% UI)
- Probability 7-day strategy cost-effective at willingness-to-pay A$28 033
- 50.3%
- Probability 7-day strategy cost-saving
- 82.67%
Further findings
CRBSI risk
Original publication
Seven-Day vs Four-Day Infusion Set Replacement Interval and Catheter-Related Infections. JAMA Netw Open. Published 1 December 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →