Cost and Performance Indicators Comparison of two Dual-Head Contrast Medium Injectors during Contrast Enhanced Computed Tomography
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5474-0982
Juan Carlos Aldana Leal
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4047-9709
Emily Vargas
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
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.
inyector de doble jeringa, medio de contraste, análisis de costos, tomografía computarizadadual-syringe power injector, contrast medium, cost analysis, tomography scanners
2. Rettig RA, Harman AJ. The development of medical technology: a policy perspective. Santa Mónica (CA): RAND Corporation; 1979.
3. 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
4. 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
5. Conall GJ. Computed tomography in clinical practice. BMJ. 2002 May 4;324(7345):1077-80. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7345.1077
6. 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/
7. 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
8. 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
9. 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
10. 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
11. 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
12. 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
13. Mikulic M. Medical technology industry-Statistics & Facts [Internet]. Statista. Available from: https://www.statista.com/topics/1702/medical-technology-industry/#topicOverview
14. 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#
15. DiCiccio TJ, Bradley E. Bootstrap confidence intervals. Stat Sci [Internet]. 1996;11(3):189–212. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2246110
16. Instituto Nacional de Medicamentos y Alimentos (Invima). Resolución 2019028297/2019 de 10 de julio, de registro sanitario.
17. 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
18. 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
19. 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.
20. Sanitarios, Agencia Española de Medicamentos y Productos. Ficha técnica-Optiray Ultraject 320 mg/ml solución inyectable. España; 2017.
21. 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
22. 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.