IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v3y2019i2d10.1007_s41669-018-0091-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost Comparison of Single-Use Versus Reusable Bronchoscopes Used for Percutaneous Dilatational Tracheostomy

Author

Listed:
  • Anne Sohrt

    (Ambu A/S)

  • Lars Ehlers

    (Department of Business and Management)

  • Flemming Witt Udsen

    (Department of Health Science and Technology)

  • Anders Mærkedahl

    (Ambu A/S)

  • Brendan A. McGrath

    (Manchester University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust)

Abstract

Background Both single-use and reusable bronchoscopes are suitable for percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) to visualise the trachea during the insertion process. To determine the least costly option, the price of single-use bronchoscopes must be weighed against the estimated average cost of a bronchoscopy with reusable equipment. In the latter case, the acquisition cost must be spread over the equipment’s useful life and other relevant costs, such as reprocessing and repair, must be included. Objective This study aimed to calculate the cost of using single-use or reusable bronchoscopes per PDT procedure. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies comparing the costs of reusable and single-use bronchoscopes for PDT. Inclusion criteria were articles assessing the cost of single-use or reusable bronchoscopes, and where costs were divided into acquisition, reprocessing, and repair costs. A questionnaire regarding repair rates and costs for reusable bronchoscopes was sent to 366 hospitals in the US, UK, and Germany to supplement the identified literature. Results Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Ninety-nine completed responses were received, of which 31 hospitals used reusable equipment for PDT. Literature research revealed an average acquisition cost of $US135 (SD 152) and reprocessing cost of $US123 (SD 128). Additionally, a combination of data from the literature and the questionnaires gave a repair cost per use of $US148 (SD 242), resulting in a total average cost of $US406 for reusable bronchoscopes and $US249 (SD 36) for single-use bronchoscopes per PDT procedure. Thus, the incremental cost per use of a reusable bronchoscope compared with a single-use bronchoscope was $US157. Conclusions We conclude that significant savings can be made by using single-use bronchoscopes to guide PDT in preference to reusable bronchoscopes. Results depend on hospital setting, the reprocessing procedures, annual bronchoscope procedures, individual repair cost, and repair rates.

Suggested Citation

  • Anne Sohrt & Lars Ehlers & Flemming Witt Udsen & Anders Mærkedahl & Brendan A. McGrath, 2019. "Cost Comparison of Single-Use Versus Reusable Bronchoscopes Used for Percutaneous Dilatational Tracheostomy," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 189-195, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:3:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s41669-018-0091-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-018-0091-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-018-0091-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-018-0091-2?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Klemeš, Jiří Jaromír & Fan, Yee Van & Jiang, Peng, 2020. "The energy and environmental footprints of COVID-19 fighting measures – PPE, disinfection, supply chains," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).

    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:3:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s41669-018-0091-2. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.