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) 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

Cost savings following faecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent infection

Background: Recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (rCDI) is becoming increasingly common. Faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is effective for rCDI, but the costs of an FMT and hospital cost savings related to FMT are unknown. The aim of this study was to calculate the cost of an FMT and the total hospital costs before and after FMT. Methods: This was an observational single-centre study, carried out in a public teaching hospital. We included all patients referred for rCDI from January 2014 through December 2015 and documented costs related to donor screening, laboratory processing, and clinical FMT application. We calculated patient-related hospital costs 1 year before FMT (pre-FMT) and 1 year after FMT (post-FMT). Sensitivity analyses were applied to assess the robustness of the results. Results: We included 50 consecutive adult patients who had a verified diagnosis of rCDI and were referred for FMT. The average cost of an outpatient FMT procedure if donor faeces were applied by colonoscopy was €3,326 per patient and €2,864 if donor faeces were applied using a nasojejunal tube. The total annual pre-FMT hospital costs per patient were €56,415 (95% confidence interval (CI) 41,133–71,697), and these costs dropped by 42% to €32,816 (22,618–42,014) post-FMT ( p = 0.004). The main cost driver was hospital admissions. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated cost reductions in all scenarios. Conclusions: In a public hospital with an implemented FMT service, the average cost of FMT applied by either colonoscopy or nasojejunal tube was €3,095. Total hospital costs dropped by 42% the first year after FMT. The reduction was mainly caused by reductions in the number of hospital admissions and in length of stay