IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v7y2023i4d10.1007_s41669-023-00417-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Anders E. Kristensen

    (Aalborg University)

  • Jonathan S. Kurman

    (Medical College of Wisconsin)

  • D. K. Hogarth

    (The University of Chicago)

  • Sonali Sethi

    (Cleveland Clinic)

  • Sabrina S. Sørensen

    (Aalborg University)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Anders E. Kristensen & Jonathan S. Kurman & D. K. Hogarth & Sonali Sethi & Sabrina S. Sørensen, 2023. "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," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 7(4), pages 665-678, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:7:y:2023:i:4:d:10.1007_s41669-023-00417-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-023-00417-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-023-00417-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-023-00417-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carina Østervig Andersen & Helena Travis & Emilie Dehlholm-Lambertsen & Rasmus Russell & Emmelie Ploug Jørgensen, 2022. "The Cost of Flexible Bronchoscopes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 6(6), pages 787-797, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:7:y:2023:i:4:d:10.1007_s41669-023-00417-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.