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 |
_version_ | 1785042185612165120 |
---|---|
author | Kristensen, Anders E. Kurman, Jonathan S. Hogarth, D. K. Sethi, Sonali Sørensen, Sabrina S. |
author_facet | Kristensen, Anders E. Kurman, Jonathan S. Hogarth, D. K. Sethi, Sonali Sørensen, Sabrina S. |
author_sort | Kristensen, Anders E. |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10184637 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-101846372023-05-16 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 Kristensen, Anders E. Kurman, Jonathan S. Hogarth, D. K. Sethi, Sonali Sørensen, Sabrina S. Pharmacoecon Open Original Research Article 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. Springer International Publishing 2023-05-15 /pmc/articles/PMC10184637/ /pubmed/37184625 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41669-023-00417-y Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Research Article Kristensen, Anders E. Kurman, Jonathan S. Hogarth, D. K. Sethi, Sonali Sørensen, Sabrina S. 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 |
title | 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 |
title_full | 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 |
title_fullStr | 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 |
title_full_unstemmed | 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 |
title_short | 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 |
title_sort | 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 |
topic | Original Research Article |
url | 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 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kristensenanderse systematicreviewandcostconsequenceanalysisofambuascope5bronchocomparedwithreusableflexiblebronchoscopesinsightsfromtwousuniversityhospitalsandanacademicinstitution AT kurmanjonathans systematicreviewandcostconsequenceanalysisofambuascope5bronchocomparedwithreusableflexiblebronchoscopesinsightsfromtwousuniversityhospitalsandanacademicinstitution AT hogarthdk systematicreviewandcostconsequenceanalysisofambuascope5bronchocomparedwithreusableflexiblebronchoscopesinsightsfromtwousuniversityhospitalsandanacademicinstitution AT sethisonali systematicreviewandcostconsequenceanalysisofambuascope5bronchocomparedwithreusableflexiblebronchoscopesinsightsfromtwousuniversityhospitalsandanacademicinstitution AT sørensensabrinas systematicreviewandcostconsequenceanalysisofambuascope5bronchocomparedwithreusableflexiblebronchoscopesinsightsfromtwousuniversityhospitalsandanacademicinstitution |