Back to Search Start Over

Costs of purchase, maintenance, microbiological control, and reprocessing of a reusable duodenoscope.

Authors :
Thiveaud D
Durand F
Hajjar J
Le Dinh E
Metz V
Napoleon B
Plessis C
Prat F
Vanbiervliet G
Durand-Zaleski I
Ponchon T
Source :
Endoscopy international open [Endosc Int Open] 2023 Sep 21; Vol. 11 (9), pp. E873-E879. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Sep 21 (Print Publication: 2023).
Publication Year :
2023

Abstract

Background and study aims The costs of reusable endoscope reprocessing have been evaluated, yet external validity of the findings remains challenging. The aim of this study was to assess the costs of purchase, maintenance, microbiological control, and reprocessing of a reusable duodenoscope per endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in France. Study findings exclude the costs of infection, downtime due to breakdown, reprocessing single-use material disposal, and device disposal, all of which should also be considered. Materials and methods The study encompassed both observational and theoretical approaches. Observational data were collected in four hospitals, from December 2019 to December 2020, with an ad hoc survey, based on 2016 and 2018 national guidelines for duodenoscope reprocessing. Costs were modeled, using the same guidelines, assuming a mean workload of 223 ERCP/duodenoscope/year. Results The mean observed cost of purchase, maintenance, microbiological control, reprocessing (human resources and consumables), and overhead (additional 35%) with a reusable duodenoscope was €80.23 (standard deviation €3.77) per ERCP. The corresponding mean theoretical cost was €182.71 for manual reprocessing without endoscope drying cabinet (EDC), €191.36 for manual reprocessing with EDC, €235.25 for automated endoscope reprocessing (AER) without EDC, and €253.62 for AER with EDC. Conclusions Because procedures, equipment, volume activity, number of duodenoscopes, human resources, and internal work organizations are hospital-dependent, observed costs varied between hospitals. Theoretical costs were higher than observed costs, showing that the theoretical approach is not sufficient. Hypotheses to explain the difference between the two approaches include failing to measure some costs in the survey and challenges in guideline implementation.<br />Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest DT declares a leadership role in EURO-PHARMAT (president and treasurer) and that the institution received funding from Boston Scientific. FD and IDZ declare having received consulting fees from Boston Scientific. JH declares having received consulting fees from Boston Scientific and Mylan. BN declares having received training sessions funded by Boston Scientific. FP declares having participated in advisory boards and having received consulting fees from Boston Scientific. GV declares a leadership role as Lead of the research committee of French endoscopic digestive society and having received consulting fees from Ambu, Boston Scientific, Fujifilm, Pentax and Tillotts. TP declares having received consulting fees from Boston Scientific, Olympus, Norgine and Ipsen, as well as payment or honoraria for educational event from Ipsen. ELD, VM and CP declare no conflicts of interest.<br /> (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
2364-3722
Volume :
11
Issue :
9
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
Endoscopy international open
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
37942444
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2153-7016