首页> 外文期刊>Medical Devices: Evidence and Research >Syringeless power injector versus dual-syringe power injector: economic evaluation of user performance, the impact on contrast enhanced computed tomography (CECT) workflow exams, and hospital costs
【24h】

Syringeless power injector versus dual-syringe power injector: economic evaluation of user performance, the impact on contrast enhanced computed tomography (CECT) workflow exams, and hospital costs

机译:无注射器动力注射器与双注射器动力注射器:用户性能的经济评估,对造影剂增强型计算机断层摄影(CECT)工作流程检查的影响以及医院成本

获取原文
           

摘要

Objective: The utilization of diagnostic imaging has substantially increased over the past decade in Europe and North America and continues to grow worldwide. The purpose of this study was to develop an economic evaluation of a syringeless power injector (PI) versus a dual-syringe PI for contrast enhanced computed tomography (CECT) in a hospital setting.Materials and methods: Patients (n=2379) were enrolled at the Legnano Hospital between November 2012 and January 2013. They had been referred to the hospital for a CECT analysis and were randomized into two groups. The first group was examined with a 256-MDCT (MultiDetector Computed Tomography) scanner using a syringeless power injector, while the other group was examined with a 64-MDCT scanner using a dual-syringe. Data on the operators' time required in the patient analysis steps as well as on the quantity of consumable materials used were collected. The radiologic technologists' satisfaction with the use of the PIs was rated on a 10-point scale. A budget impact analysis and sensitivity analysis were performed under the base-case scenario.Results: A total of 1,040 patients were examined using the syringeless system, and 1,339 with the dual-syringe system; the CECT examination quality was comparable for both PI systems. Equipment preparation time and releasing time per examination for syringeless PIs versus dual-syringe PIs were 100±30 versus 180±30 seconds and 90±30 and 140±20 seconds, respectively. On average, 10±3 mL of contrast media (CM) wastage per examination was observed with the dual-syringe PI and 0±1 mL with the syringeless PI. Technologists had higher satisfaction with the syringeless PI than with the dual-syringe system (8.8 versus 8.0). The syringeless PI allows a saving of about €6.18 per patient, both due to the lower cost of the devices and to the better performance of the syringeless system. The univariate sensitivity analysis carried out on the base-case results within the standard deviation range confirmed the saving generated by using the syringeless device, with saving values between €5.40 and €6.20 per patient.Conclusion: The syringeless PI was found to be more user-friendly and efficient, minimizing contrast wastage and providing similar contrast enhancement quality compared to the dual-syringe injector, with comparable CECT examination quality.
机译:目标:在过去的十年中,欧洲和北美的诊断成像利用率大大提高,并且在全球范围内持续增长。这项研究的目的是对医院环境中对比增强计算机断层扫描(CECT)的无注射器电动注射器(PI)与双注射器PI进行经济评估。材料与方法:患者(n = 2379)他们于2012年11月至2013年1月在莱尼亚诺医院就诊。他们已被转送到医院进行CECT分析,并随机分为两组。第一组用使用无注射器动力注射器的256-MDCT(多检测器计算机断层扫描)扫描仪检查,而另一组用双注射器的64-MDCT扫描仪检查。收集了有关患者分析步骤中所需的操作员时间以及所用消耗材料数量的数据。放射技师对使用PI的满意度的评分为10分。结果:在无针刺系统中检查了1,040例患者,在双针筒系统中检查了1,339例患者。两种PI系统的CECT检查质量均相当。无注射器PI与双注射器PI的每次检查设备准备时间和释放时间分别为100±30对180±30秒和90±30和140±20秒。平均而言,双注射器PI每次检查可观察到10±3 mL造影剂(CM)浪费,而无注射器PI则可观察到0±1 mL造影剂浪费。与双注射器系统相比,技术人员对无注射器PI的满意度更高(8.8对8.0)。无注射器的PI可以为每个患者节省约6.18欧元,这是由于设备成本较低以及无注射器系统的更好性能所致。对基本案例结果进行的单变量敏感性分析在标准偏差范围内进行了确认,证实了使用无注射器设备可节省的费用,每位患者节省的费用在5.40欧元至6.20欧元之间。友好且高效,与双针注射器相比,造影剂浪费最小,并提供类似的造影剂增强质量,并且具有可比的CECT检查质量。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号