Cargando…
Systematic Review and Cost-Consequence Analysis of Ambu aScope 5 Broncho Compared with Reusable Flexible Bronchoscopes: Insights from Two US University Hospitals and an Academic Institution
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review, meta-analysis and cost-consequence analysis of the single-use bronchoscope, Ambu aScope(TM) 5 Broncho, in relation to reusable flexible bronchoscopes (RFB) available within three high procedure volume university hospitals and acade...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10184637/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37184625 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41669-023-00417-y |
Sumario: | OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review, meta-analysis and cost-consequence analysis of the single-use bronchoscope, Ambu aScope(TM) 5 Broncho, in relation to reusable flexible bronchoscopes (RFB) available within three high procedure volume university hospitals and academic institutions in the USA. METHODS: The primary outcome was incremental cost and the secondary outcome was incremental cross-infection risk of use for both the single-use flexible bronchoscope (SUFB) and RFBs. Cost estimates included capital, repair, and reprocessing costs derived from a prospective observational micro-costing approach within three large university hospitals and academic institutions. All costs were valued in 2022 US dollars (USD). A meta-analysis based on literature covering cross-contamination and infection from 2010 to 2020 investigated cross-infection risk following bronchoscopy procedures with RFBs. Capital costs were discounted at 3% over 5–8 years. All parameters were evaluated using both univariate deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In high-volume hospitals, RFBs were cost minimizing compared to SUFBs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that RFBs were cost saving in 88% of iterations. Univariate analyses illustrated sensitivity of the base-case result to the procedure volume. Data from sensitivity analyses suggest that the two interventions are cost neutral at a break-even point of 756 procedures per year or 46 procedures per bronchoscope per year. CONCLUSION: Assuming equivalent clinical performance, single-use flexible bronchoscopes are not cost minimizing when including the costs associated with cross-infection in high-volume US university hospitals and academic institutions. Overall, the benefits of conversion from RFBs to SUFBs are dependent on the annual procedure volume of individual hospitals, expected cross-infection risk, and purchase price of the aScope 5 Broncho. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41669-023-00417-y. |
---|