MedElevator
Войти в исследования Journal of bronchology & interventional pulmonology · 2025
A Micro-costing Analysis of Single-use and Reusable Flexible Bronchoscope Usage in the Bronchoscopy Service at A Tertiary Care University Hospital.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Flandes Javier, Giménez Andrés, Álvarez Susana, Giraldo-Cadavid Luis F
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Single-use flexible bronchoscopes (SFBs) are increasingly used to minimize cross-infection risk, particularly in immunocompromised and intensive care unit patients. However, broader adoption requires cost analysis. We conducted a 1-year cost-minimization analysis comparing SFBs and reusable flexible bronchoscopes (RFBs) at a tertiary care university hospital.
METHODS: We evaluated the costs per procedure, considering capital equipment, maintenance, repair, reprocessing, and overhead costs. We also analyzed the impact of annual procedure volume on costs and performed a sensitivity analysis to assess the effect of uncertainty on costs.
RESULTS: A total of 1394 bronchoscopies were performed. RFBs were less expensive for an annual volume of >50 bronchoscopies/year, with a 22% lower cost per procedure than that for SFBs (€203 vs. €259). This cost advantage became increasingly favorable with an increasing number of procedures, reaching a plateau after exceeding 250 bronchoscopies/year. The capital equipment, the annual number of bronchoscopies, and reprocessing were the major cost drivers for RFBs. During nonworking hours, the cost per procedure of RFBs ranged from €349.45 to €392.29. Using RFBs during interventions involving a high risk of bronchoscope damage (frequency of damage >10%) would increase the cost per bronchoscopy to >€263 (exceeding the cost of SFBs).
CONCLUSION: RFBs were 22% less expensive than SFBs for services with a moderate to high volume of bronchoscopies. However, this difference could not justify using RFBs in patients with a high cross-infection risk. SFBs might be less costly for procedures outside working hours and interventions involving a high risk of bronchoscope damage.
METHODS: We evaluated the costs per procedure, considering capital equipment, maintenance, repair, reprocessing, and overhead costs. We also analyzed the impact of annual procedure volume on costs and performed a sensitivity analysis to assess the effect of uncertainty on costs.
RESULTS: A total of 1394 bronchoscopies were performed. RFBs were less expensive for an annual volume of >50 bronchoscopies/year, with a 22% lower cost per procedure than that for SFBs (€203 vs. €259). This cost advantage became increasingly favorable with an increasing number of procedures, reaching a plateau after exceeding 250 bronchoscopies/year. The capital equipment, the annual number of bronchoscopies, and reprocessing were the major cost drivers for RFBs. During nonworking hours, the cost per procedure of RFBs ranged from €349.45 to €392.29. Using RFBs during interventions involving a high risk of bronchoscope damage (frequency of damage >10%) would increase the cost per bronchoscopy to >€263 (exceeding the cost of SFBs).
CONCLUSION: RFBs were 22% less expensive than SFBs for services with a moderate to high volume of bronchoscopies. However, this difference could not justify using RFBs in patients with a high cross-infection risk. SFBs might be less costly for procedures outside working hours and interventions involving a high risk of bronchoscope damage.