Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 299

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cost-Effectiveness of Antiseptic-Impregnated Central Venous Catheters for the Prevention of Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infection

Veenstra, David L.·1999·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: A recent randomized controlled trial and meta-analysis indicated that central venous catheters impregnated with an antiseptic combination of chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine are efficacious in reducing the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CR-BSI); however, the ultimate clinical and economic consequences of their use have not been formally evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental clinical and economic outcomes associated with the use of antiseptic-impregnated vs standard catheters. DESIGN: Decision analytic model using data from randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and case-control studies, as well as safety data from the US Food and Drug Administration. SETTING AND PATIENTS: A hypothetical cohort of hospitalized patients at high risk for catheter-related infections (eg, patients in intensive care units, immunosuppressed patients, and patients receiving total parenteral nutrition) requiring use of a central venous catheter. INTERVENTION: Short-term use (2-10 days) of chlorhexidine-silver sulfadiazine-impregnated multilumen central venous catheters and nonimpregnated catheters. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Expected incidence of CR-BSI and death attributable to antiseptic-impregnated and standard catheter use; direct medical costs for both types of catheters. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, use of antiseptic-impregnated catheters resulted in a decrease in the incidence of CR-BSI of 2.2% (5.2% for standard vs 3.0% for antiseptic-impregnated catheters), a decrease in the incidence of death of 0.33% (0.78% for standard vs 0.45% for antiseptic-impregnated), and a decrease in costs of $196 per catheter used ($532 for standard vs $336 for antiseptic-impregnated). The decrease in CR-BSI ranged from 1.2% to 3.4%, the decrease in death ranged from 0.09% to 0.78%, and the costs saved ranged from $68 to $391 in a multivariate sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: Our analyses suggest that use of chlorhexidine-silver sulfadiazine-impregnated central venous catheters in patients at high risk for catheter-related infections reduces the incidence of CR-BSI and death and provides significant saving in costs. Use of these catheters should be considered as part of a comprehensive nosocomial infection control program.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.282.6.554

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 26 references

Cited by

See all 299

Metadata

Authors
Veenstra, D. L.
Venue
JAMA
Published
1999-08-11
Volume
282
Issue
6
Pages
554
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2161182983
Cited by
299
References
26
FWCI
40.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cost-Effectiveness of Antiseptic-Impregnated Central Venous Catheters for the Prevention of Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.282.6.554
The paper
Veenstra, D. L. (1999). Cost-Effectiveness of Antiseptic-Impregnated Central Venous Catheters for the Prevention of Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infection. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.282.6.554

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.