Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis: Budget impact analysis

Authors

  • Юлия Михайловна Гомон St. Petersburg 1st Pavlov Medical School, 6/8, Lev Tolstoy str., St.Petersburg, 197101, Russian Federation; St. George the Martyr City Hospital, 1, Severny pr., St. Petersburg, 194354, Russian Federation

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu11.2018.307

Abstract

To perform budget impact analysis of common practice perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) among patients hospitalized in multidisciplinary hospitals. Budget impact analysis of PAP was performed using data from a multicenter epidemiological trial and previously conducted studies. Decision tree model was used to assess the effectiveness of common practice PAP compared to PAP according to clinical practice guidelines. Surgical site infection incidence and number of prevented cases of antibiotic-associated diarrhea were chosen as endpoints. Budget impact analysis indicates that PAP according to clinical practice guidelines will save a significant part of Russian Federal health system budget as well as the budget of hospitals. Regular epidemiological monitoring is required to improve the effectiveness of existing PAP practice.

Keywords:

perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis, surgical site infection, budget impact analysis

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
 

References

Литература

Голуб А. В., Козлов Р. С. Рациональная антибиотикотерапия — путь к сохранению активности антибиотиков // Врач. Спецвыпуск «Инфекционные болезни». 2015. № 1. C. 4–9.

Сидоренко С. В., Колбин А. С., Шляпников С. А. Фармакоэпидемиологическое исследование использования антибактериальных средств в многопрофильных стационарах Санкт-Петербурга // Антибиотики и химиотерапия. 2017. № 62. С. 17–22

Методические рекомендации по оценке влияния на бюджет в рамках реализации программы Государственных гарантий бесплатного оказания гражданам медицинской помощи // ФГБУ «ЦЭККМП» Минздрава России. Утверждены приказом ФГБУ «ЦЭККМП» Минздрава России от 23.12.2016. № 145-од. Москва, 2016.

Mauskopf J. A. Principles of Good Practice for Budget Impact Analysis: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices — Budget Impact Analysis // Value in Health. 2007. Vol. 10, N 5. P. 336–347.

Федеральные клинические рекомендации «Принципы организации периоперационной антибиотикопрофилактики в учреждениях здравоохранения», МАКМАХ, НАСКИ, 2014 г. URL: http://nasci.ru/_resources/directory/198/common/2014_9_PAP_new.pdf (дата обращения: 05.06.2017).

Carignan A., Allard C., Pe´pin J., et al. Risk of Clostridium difficile Infection after Perioperative Antibacterial Prophylaxis before and during an Outbreak of Infection due to a Hypervirulent Strain // Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2008. Vol. 46. P. 1838–1843.

Loo V. G., Poirier L., Miller M. A., et al. A predominantly clonal multiinstitutional outbreak of Clostridium difficile–associated diarrhea with high morbidity and mortality // N. Engl. J. Med. 2005. Vol. 353. P. 2442–2449.

Vaishnavi C. Established and potential risk factors for Clostridum difficile infection // Indian. J. Med. Microbiol. 2009. Vol. 27, N 4. P. 289–300.

McDonald A. H., Cleland H. J., Leung M., et al. Ring avulsion injuries // Aust. N. Z. J. Surg. 1999. Vol. 69. P. 514–516.

Chiara S. Prolongation of antibiotic prophylaxis after clean and clean-contaminated surgery and surgical site infection // Minerva Anestesiologica. 2010. Vol. 76, N 6. P. 413–419.

Kreisel D., Savel T. G., Silver A. L., et al. Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis and Clostridium difficile toxin positivity // Arch. Surg. 1995. Vol. 130. P. 989–993.

Здравоохранение в России 2015. Федеральная служба государственной статистики / под ред. М. А. Дианова. Стат. сб./Росстат. М., 2015. 176 с.

Alfonso J. L., Pereperez S. B., Canoves J. M., et al. Are we really seeing the total costs of surgical site infections? A Spanish study // Wound Repair Regen. 2007. Vol. 15, N 4. P. 474–481.


References

Golub A. V., Kozlov R. S. Ratsional’naia antibiotikoterapiia — put’ k sokhraneniiu aktivnosti antibiotikov. Vrach. Spetsvypusk “Infektsionnye bolezni”, 2015, no. 1, pp. 4–9. (In Russian)

Sidorenko S. V., Kolbin A. S., Shlyapnikov S. A. Farmakoepidemiologicheskoe issledovanie ispol’zovaniia antibakterial’nykh sredstv v mnogoprofil’nykh statsionarakh Sankt-Peterburga. Antibiotiki i khimioterapiia, 2017, no. 62, pp. 17–22. (In Russian)

Metodicheskie rekomendatsii po otsenke vliianiia na biudzhet v ramkakh realizatsii programmy Gosudarstvennykh garantii besplatnogo okazaniia grazhdanam meditsinskoi pomoshchi. FGBU «TsEKKMP» Minzdrava Rossii. Utverzhdeny prikazom FGBU «TsEKKMP» Minzdrava Rossii ot «23» dekabria 2016 g. № 145-od, Moscow, 2016. (In Russian)

Mauskopf J. A. Principles of Good Practice for Budget Impact Analysis: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices — Budget Impact Analysis. Value in Health, 2007, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 336–347.

Federal’nye klinicheskie rekomendatsii «Printsipy organizatsii perioperatsionnoi antibiotikoprofilaktiki v uchrezhdeniiakh zdravookhraneniia», MAKMAKh, NASKI, 2014 g. Available at: http://nasci.ru/_resources/directory/198/common/2014_9_PAP_new.pdf (accessed: 05.06.2017). (In Russian)

Carignan A., Allard C., Pe´pin J., et al. Risk of Clostridium difficile Infection after Perioperative Antibacterial Prophylaxis before and during an Outbreak of Infection due to a Hypervirulent Strain. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2008, vol. 46, pp. 1838–1843.

Loo V. G., Poirier L., Miller M. A., et al. A predominantly clonal multiinstitutional outbreak of Clostridium difficile–associated diarrhea with high morbidity and mortality. N. Engl. J. Med., 2005, vol. 353, pp. 2442–2449.

Vaishnavi C. Established and potential risk factors for Clostridum difficile infection. Indian J. Med Microbiol, 2009, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 289–300.

McDonald A. H., Cleland H. J., Leung M., et al. Ring avulsion injuries. Aust. N. Z. J. Surg., 1999, vol. 69, pp. 514–516.

Chiara S. Prolongation of antibiotic prophylaxis after clean and clean-contaminated surgery and surgical site infection. Minerva Anestesiologica, 2010, vol. 76, no. 6, pp. 413–419.

Kreisel D., Savel T. G., Silver A. L., et al. Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis and Clostridium difficile toxin positivity. Arch Surg, 1995, vol. 130, pp. 989–993.

Zdravookhranenie v Rossii 2015. Federal’naia sluzhba gosudarstvennoi statistiki. Ed. by M. A. Dianov. Rosstat publ, Мoscow, 2015. 176 p. (In Russian)

Alfonso J. L., Pereperez S. B., Canoves J. M., et al. Are we really seeing the total costs of surgical site infections? A Spanish study. Wound Repair Regen, 2007, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 474–481.

Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Медицина

Downloads

Published

2018-09-20

How to Cite

Гомон, Ю. М. (2018). Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis: Budget impact analysis. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Medicine, 13(3), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu11.2018.307

Issue

Vol. 13 No. 3 (2018)

Section

Public health and health care

License

Articles of "Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Medicine" are open access distributed under the terms of the License Agreement with Saint Petersburg State University, which permits to the authors unrestricted distribution and self-archiving free of charge.