Cargando…

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing the VivaSight Double-Lumen Tube and a Conventional Double-Lumen Tube in Adult Patients Undergoing Thoracic Surgery Involving One-Lung Ventilation

BACKGROUND: One-lung ventilation (OLV) procedures are essential for most thoracic surgeries, and the most common method is intubation with a conventional double-lumen tube (cDLT) and bronchoscopy to verify correct tube placement. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to conduct a cost-effective...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Larsen, Sara, Holm, Jimmy Højberg, Sauer, Tove Nørgaard, Andersen, Claus
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7018861/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31297752
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41669-019-0163-y
_version_ 1783497409935966208
author Larsen, Sara
Holm, Jimmy Højberg
Sauer, Tove Nørgaard
Andersen, Claus
author_facet Larsen, Sara
Holm, Jimmy Højberg
Sauer, Tove Nørgaard
Andersen, Claus
author_sort Larsen, Sara
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: One-lung ventilation (OLV) procedures are essential for most thoracic surgeries, and the most common method is intubation with a conventional double-lumen tube (cDLT) and bronchoscopy to verify correct tube placement. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the VivaSight double-lumen tube (DL) and a cDLT for OLV procedures. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from a healthcare sector perspective in Denmark using a decision analytic model to assess the potential effects and costs of using VivaSight-DL as an alternative to a cDLT with a reusable bronchoscope. Costs were determined using a micro-costing approach. The effectiveness measure was the number of times that fiberoptic confirmation of the tube placement during intubation or surgery was unnecessary and thus avoided. The effectiveness input was from a randomized controlled trial (n = 52). Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Fiberoptic confirmation of tube placement was only necessary in two (6.66%) procedures using VivaSight-DL. The cost of using VivaSight-DL was $US299.96 per procedure versus $US347.61 for a cDLT with a reusable bronchoscope. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was − $US51.06 per bronchoscopy avoided. The base-case analysis indicated that the use of VivaSight-DL was cost effective compared with the use of a cDLT with reusable bronchoscope. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust and that VivaSight-DL was more effective and less costly. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that VivaSight-DL is associated with cost savings and reductions in bronchoscope use to verify correct tube placement. The conclusion is based on the results from a single institution. To clarify whether VivaSight-DL is cost effective in larger or global clinical settings, further economic evaluations should be performed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7018861
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70188612020-02-28 A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing the VivaSight Double-Lumen Tube and a Conventional Double-Lumen Tube in Adult Patients Undergoing Thoracic Surgery Involving One-Lung Ventilation Larsen, Sara Holm, Jimmy Højberg Sauer, Tove Nørgaard Andersen, Claus Pharmacoecon Open Original Research Article BACKGROUND: One-lung ventilation (OLV) procedures are essential for most thoracic surgeries, and the most common method is intubation with a conventional double-lumen tube (cDLT) and bronchoscopy to verify correct tube placement. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the VivaSight double-lumen tube (DL) and a cDLT for OLV procedures. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from a healthcare sector perspective in Denmark using a decision analytic model to assess the potential effects and costs of using VivaSight-DL as an alternative to a cDLT with a reusable bronchoscope. Costs were determined using a micro-costing approach. The effectiveness measure was the number of times that fiberoptic confirmation of the tube placement during intubation or surgery was unnecessary and thus avoided. The effectiveness input was from a randomized controlled trial (n = 52). Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Fiberoptic confirmation of tube placement was only necessary in two (6.66%) procedures using VivaSight-DL. The cost of using VivaSight-DL was $US299.96 per procedure versus $US347.61 for a cDLT with a reusable bronchoscope. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was − $US51.06 per bronchoscopy avoided. The base-case analysis indicated that the use of VivaSight-DL was cost effective compared with the use of a cDLT with reusable bronchoscope. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust and that VivaSight-DL was more effective and less costly. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that VivaSight-DL is associated with cost savings and reductions in bronchoscope use to verify correct tube placement. The conclusion is based on the results from a single institution. To clarify whether VivaSight-DL is cost effective in larger or global clinical settings, further economic evaluations should be performed. Springer International Publishing 2019-07-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7018861/ /pubmed/31297752 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41669-019-0163-y Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Original Research Article
Larsen, Sara
Holm, Jimmy Højberg
Sauer, Tove Nørgaard
Andersen, Claus
A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing the VivaSight Double-Lumen Tube and a Conventional Double-Lumen Tube in Adult Patients Undergoing Thoracic Surgery Involving One-Lung Ventilation
title A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing the VivaSight Double-Lumen Tube and a Conventional Double-Lumen Tube in Adult Patients Undergoing Thoracic Surgery Involving One-Lung Ventilation
title_full A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing the VivaSight Double-Lumen Tube and a Conventional Double-Lumen Tube in Adult Patients Undergoing Thoracic Surgery Involving One-Lung Ventilation
title_fullStr A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing the VivaSight Double-Lumen Tube and a Conventional Double-Lumen Tube in Adult Patients Undergoing Thoracic Surgery Involving One-Lung Ventilation
title_full_unstemmed A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing the VivaSight Double-Lumen Tube and a Conventional Double-Lumen Tube in Adult Patients Undergoing Thoracic Surgery Involving One-Lung Ventilation
title_short A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing the VivaSight Double-Lumen Tube and a Conventional Double-Lumen Tube in Adult Patients Undergoing Thoracic Surgery Involving One-Lung Ventilation
title_sort cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the vivasight double-lumen tube and a conventional double-lumen tube in adult patients undergoing thoracic surgery involving one-lung ventilation
topic Original Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7018861/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31297752
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41669-019-0163-y
work_keys_str_mv AT larsensara acosteffectivenessanalysiscomparingthevivasightdoublelumentubeandaconventionaldoublelumentubeinadultpatientsundergoingthoracicsurgeryinvolvingonelungventilation
AT holmjimmyhøjberg acosteffectivenessanalysiscomparingthevivasightdoublelumentubeandaconventionaldoublelumentubeinadultpatientsundergoingthoracicsurgeryinvolvingonelungventilation
AT sauertovenørgaard acosteffectivenessanalysiscomparingthevivasightdoublelumentubeandaconventionaldoublelumentubeinadultpatientsundergoingthoracicsurgeryinvolvingonelungventilation
AT andersenclaus acosteffectivenessanalysiscomparingthevivasightdoublelumentubeandaconventionaldoublelumentubeinadultpatientsundergoingthoracicsurgeryinvolvingonelungventilation
AT larsensara costeffectivenessanalysiscomparingthevivasightdoublelumentubeandaconventionaldoublelumentubeinadultpatientsundergoingthoracicsurgeryinvolvingonelungventilation
AT holmjimmyhøjberg costeffectivenessanalysiscomparingthevivasightdoublelumentubeandaconventionaldoublelumentubeinadultpatientsundergoingthoracicsurgeryinvolvingonelungventilation
AT sauertovenørgaard costeffectivenessanalysiscomparingthevivasightdoublelumentubeandaconventionaldoublelumentubeinadultpatientsundergoingthoracicsurgeryinvolvingonelungventilation
AT andersenclaus costeffectivenessanalysiscomparingthevivasightdoublelumentubeandaconventionaldoublelumentubeinadultpatientsundergoingthoracicsurgeryinvolvingonelungventilation