A lot of iv antibiotics are cytotoxic. We still hang them to help the body necros cells if apoptosis isn't getting the job done by itself alone.
Yeabut you don't want to cause apoptosis in healthy cells, by accident, because of something in
your tubing (or bag or anything else that touches or communicates with the patient)
Patient response is usually related to infection for all these medical device. (Eg tubing used > 4 days). I guess unless you have a radioactive implant?
That is because everything you are using has been tested for biocompatibility. Otherwise, you'd
have plenty of unwanted patient responses. Unless I misunderstand what you are trying to say
here.
Anyway back to "cost" analysis: what does leachate have to do with changing tubing every 4 days from a cost perspective. Central lines and picc lines can stay in for weeks. Wouldn't leachate affect those?
The time to change the tubing has been determined (now we're getting into what I need to
charge you for) by the manufacturer based on their risk analysis and the results of
biocompatibility testing. In the case of a tubing set, cytotoxicity (I've been
using as an example as it applies specifically to leachates which I mentioned originally),
irritation, sensitization, sub-chronic toxicity, maybe Ames mutagenicity, a couple more
for blood tubing. Depending on the results and how the risk analysis applies, a limit
to the time you can use the tubing set is generally warranted.
I'm assuming the central lines and picc lines have a different risk profile, may
be different material (knowing that there are thousands of alloys of PVC this
is almost certain), and different test results, the manufacturers of your kits
have come up with a different 'replace by' date for IV lines and central lines.
Sure that affects cost but do you really want to chance that the manufacturer
is wrong and you can use stuff longer? There are far better ways to reduce
costs. And far easier ways. Changing FDA rules for medical devices has some
merit but this is one area of their regulatory methods that really doesn't have much
room for change that would improve cost. You want a big change in regulatory
cost? Change the whole 510(k) bullbarf where any new product can either be the same
as a device made before May 28, 1976, and be approved in 90 days, or go through a
whole different process (PMA) that takes a minimum of 2 years.
But that's a whole 'nother subject I'd have to bill you for.