Abstract
Objective
The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review, meta-analysis and cost-consequence analysis of the single-use bronchoscope, Ambu aScopeTM 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.
The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review, meta-analysis and cost-consequence analysis of the single-use bronchoscope, Ambu aScopeTM 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.
| Originalsprog | Engelsk |
|---|---|
| Tidsskrift | PharmacoEconomics - Open |
| Vol/bind | 7 |
| Udgave nummer | 4 |
| Sider (fra-til) | 665-678 |
| Antal sider | 14 |
| ISSN | 2509-4262 |
| DOI | |
| Status | Udgivet - jul. 2023 |