Keywords
contrast medium
cost analysis
tomography scanners
How to Cite
Abstract
The progress towards the adoption of complex technologies for medical diagnosis, requires analyzing their economic and technical advantages. Two dual-head injectors were compared regarding cost, time and volume of contrast medium used during computed tomography, in a prospective analysis of 103 procedures. Two observers recorded consumable goods and performance indicators during the use of (OptiVantage®) and (Medrad® Stellant) combined with the use of Medrad Stellant Multi-Patient Kit; the costs associated with routine use and recommended use in a third level care institution in Colombia were determined. Preparation time was 23.3 seconds more (p < 0.000) with OptiVantage® (52.2 seconds, 95%CI 46.7 - 56.7) compared to the Medrad® Stellant injector group (28.9 seconds, 95%CI 21.8 - 39.5). The volume of injected contrast medium was greater by 8.7 mL (p < 0.005) with OptiVantage® (68.4 mL, 95%CI 63.4 - 73.3) versus the Medrad® Stellant injector (59.7 mL, 95%CI 56.7 - 62.7). The total cost per use of Medrad® Stellant is 8% lower in the routine mode of use. The Medrad® Stellant CT Injection System combined with the use of the Medrad Stellant Multi-Patient Kit is more efficient, offers safety and a lower total cost per procedure performed.
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
Rettig RA, Harman AJ. The development of medical technology: a policy perspective. Santa Mónica (CA): RAND Corporation; 1979.
Barrientos Gómez JG, Marín Castro AE, Becerra Ruiz L, Tobón Arango MA. La evaluación de nuevas tecnologías en salud en hospitales: revisión narrativa. Med UPB. 2016;35(2):120-34. https://doi.org/10.18566/medupb.v35n2.a0
Word Health Organization. Evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias aplicada a los dispositivos médicos [Internet]. Geneva: WHO; 2012. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44824
Conall GJ. Computed tomography in clinical practice. BMJ. 2002 May 4;324(7345):1077-80. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7345.1077
Stewart C. Computer tomography scanner density by country 2019 [Internet]. Statista; 2020. Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/266539/distribution-of-equipment-for-computer-tomography/
Colombo GL, Bergamo AI, Matteo SD, Bruno GM, Mondellini C. 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. Med Devices. 2013;6:169–74. https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S51757
Boland GW. Enhancing CT productivity: strategies for increasing capacity. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(3):3–10. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.3208?mobileUi=0
Ma X, Singh A, Fay J, Boland G, Sahani DV. Comparison of dual syringe and syringeless power injectors in outpatient MDCT practice: impact on the operator’s performance, CT workflow, and operation costs. J Am Coll Radiol. 2012;8(9):578–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2012.04.007
Indrajit IK, Sivasankar R, D’Souza J, Pant R, Negi RS, Sahu S, Hashim PI. Pressure injectors for radiologists: a review and what is new. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2015;25(1):2–10. https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-3026.150105
Bae, KT. Technical aspects of contrast delivery in advanced CT. Appl Radiol. 2003;32(1):12–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/88-470-0413-6_2
Centro Nacional de Excelencia Tecnológica en Salud. Guía para la evaluación económica de dispositivos médicos [Internet]. Ciudad de México; 2017. Available from: https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/460006/Guia_para_la_Evaluacion_Economica_de_Dispositivos_Medicos.pdf
Mikulic M. Medical technology industry-Statistics & Facts [Internet]. Statista. Available from: https://www.statista.com/topics/1702/medical-technology-industry/#topicOverview
Instituto Nacional de Vigilancia de Medicamentos y Alimentos (Invima). Resolución 2017019365/2017 de 16 de mayo, por la cual se concede la renovación de un registro sanitario [Internet]. Available from: https://es.scribd.com/document/409447055/Resolution-2017019365-Injectors-Renewal#
DiCiccio TJ, Bradley E. Bootstrap confidence intervals. Stat Sci [Internet]. 1996;11(3):189–212. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2246110
Instituto Nacional de Medicamentos y Alimentos (Invima). Resolución 2019028297/2019 de 10 de julio, de registro sanitario.
Banco de la República de Colombia. Tasa representativa del mercado (TRM-peso por dólar) [Internet]. Available from: https://www.banrep.gov.co/es/estadisticas/trm
García D. El reúso de dispositivos médicos en las instituciones de salud en Colombia. El Hospital [Internet]. 2015 dic 9. Available from: https://www.elhospital.com/es/noticias/el-reuso-de-dispositivos-medicos-en-las-instituciones-de-salud-en-colombia
Organización Panamericana de la Salud, Colegio Nacional de Químicos Farmacéuticos de Colombia. Descripción de uso y reusó de dispositivos médicos en instituciones de atención en salud de alto nivel de complejidad en Colombia. Bogotá: Pan American Health Organization; 2004.
Sanitarios, Agencia Española de Medicamentos y Productos. Ficha técnica-Optiray Ultraject 320 mg/ml solución inyectable. España; 2017.
Sartori P, Rizzo F, Taborda N, Anaya V, Caraballo A, Saleme C, et al.. Medios de contraste en imágenes. Rev Argent Radiol. 2013;77(1):49–62. https://doi.org/10.7811/rarv77n1a08
Brown JR, Robb JF, Block CA, Schoolwerth AC, Kaplan AV, O’Connor GT, et al. Does safe dosing of iodinated contrast prevent contrast-induced acute kidney injury? Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2010 Aug 1;3(4):346–50.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2023 Daniel Upegui, Juan Carlos Aldana Leal, Emily Vargas