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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kristensen, Anders E., Kurman, Jonathan S., Hogarth, D. K., Sethi, Sonali, Sørensen, Sabrina S.
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