Cargando…

The Cost of Flexible Bronchoscopes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Until 2009, only reusable bronchoscopes were marketed, but the introduction and widespread adoption of single-use flexible bronchoscopes (SFBs) as an emerging technology has since accelerated. Several studies have described the costs of reusable flexible bronchoscopes (RFBs...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Andersen, Carina Østervig, Travis, Helena, Dehlholm-Lambertsen, Emilie, Russell, Rasmus, Jørgensen, Emmelie Ploug
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9596653/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35994238
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41669-022-00356-0
_version_ 1784815916183191552
author Andersen, Carina Østervig
Travis, Helena
Dehlholm-Lambertsen, Emilie
Russell, Rasmus
Jørgensen, Emmelie Ploug
author_facet Andersen, Carina Østervig
Travis, Helena
Dehlholm-Lambertsen, Emilie
Russell, Rasmus
Jørgensen, Emmelie Ploug
author_sort Andersen, Carina Østervig
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Until 2009, only reusable bronchoscopes were marketed, but the introduction and widespread adoption of single-use flexible bronchoscopes (SFBs) as an emerging technology has since accelerated. Several studies have described the costs of reusable flexible bronchoscopes (RFBs) and SFBs. This meta-analysis aimed to compile the current published evidence to analyse the cost of different scenarios using RFBs and SFBs. METHODS: All published literature describing the cost of RFBs or SFBs was identified by searching PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar, limited to those between 1 January, 2009 and 6 November, 2020. Included studies should report the total cost of RFBs. Continuous data were extracted for relevant outcomes and analysed using RStudio(®) 4.0.3 as the standardised mean difference and standard error of the mean in a mixed-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed based on the reporting quality. RESULTS: In the systematic literature review, 342 studies were initially identified, and 11 were included in the final analysis. The mean RFB procedure cost was $266 (standard error of the mean: 34), including capital investments, repairs and reprocessing costs of $91, $92 and $83, respectively. The mean SFB procedure cost was $289 (standard error of the mean: 10). The incremental cost was $23 (standard error of the mean: 33) and was not significant (p = 0.46). Because of the economy of scale, RFB is more likely to be cost minimising compared with SFB when performing 306 or 39 procedures per site or RFB, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found no significant difference in the cost of use between RFBs and SFBs and a high risk of bias. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41669-022-00356-0.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9596653
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95966532022-10-27 The Cost of Flexible Bronchoscopes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Andersen, Carina Østervig Travis, Helena Dehlholm-Lambertsen, Emilie Russell, Rasmus Jørgensen, Emmelie Ploug Pharmacoecon Open Systematic Review BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Until 2009, only reusable bronchoscopes were marketed, but the introduction and widespread adoption of single-use flexible bronchoscopes (SFBs) as an emerging technology has since accelerated. Several studies have described the costs of reusable flexible bronchoscopes (RFBs) and SFBs. This meta-analysis aimed to compile the current published evidence to analyse the cost of different scenarios using RFBs and SFBs. METHODS: All published literature describing the cost of RFBs or SFBs was identified by searching PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar, limited to those between 1 January, 2009 and 6 November, 2020. Included studies should report the total cost of RFBs. Continuous data were extracted for relevant outcomes and analysed using RStudio(®) 4.0.3 as the standardised mean difference and standard error of the mean in a mixed-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed based on the reporting quality. RESULTS: In the systematic literature review, 342 studies were initially identified, and 11 were included in the final analysis. The mean RFB procedure cost was $266 (standard error of the mean: 34), including capital investments, repairs and reprocessing costs of $91, $92 and $83, respectively. The mean SFB procedure cost was $289 (standard error of the mean: 10). The incremental cost was $23 (standard error of the mean: 33) and was not significant (p = 0.46). Because of the economy of scale, RFB is more likely to be cost minimising compared with SFB when performing 306 or 39 procedures per site or RFB, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found no significant difference in the cost of use between RFBs and SFBs and a high risk of bias. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41669-022-00356-0. Springer International Publishing 2022-08-22 /pmc/articles/PMC9596653/ /pubmed/35994238 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41669-022-00356-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 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 Systematic Review
Andersen, Carina Østervig
Travis, Helena
Dehlholm-Lambertsen, Emilie
Russell, Rasmus
Jørgensen, Emmelie Ploug
The Cost of Flexible Bronchoscopes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title The Cost of Flexible Bronchoscopes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_full The Cost of Flexible Bronchoscopes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_fullStr The Cost of Flexible Bronchoscopes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed The Cost of Flexible Bronchoscopes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_short The Cost of Flexible Bronchoscopes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_sort cost of flexible bronchoscopes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9596653/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35994238
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41669-022-00356-0
work_keys_str_mv AT andersencarinaøstervig thecostofflexiblebronchoscopesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT travishelena thecostofflexiblebronchoscopesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT dehlholmlambertsenemilie thecostofflexiblebronchoscopesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT russellrasmus thecostofflexiblebronchoscopesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT jørgensenemmelieploug thecostofflexiblebronchoscopesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT andersencarinaøstervig costofflexiblebronchoscopesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT travishelena costofflexiblebronchoscopesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT dehlholmlambertsenemilie costofflexiblebronchoscopesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT russellrasmus costofflexiblebronchoscopesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT jørgensenemmelieploug costofflexiblebronchoscopesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis