↓ Skip to main content

Cost analysis of single-use (Ambu® aScope™) and reusable bronchoscopes in the ICU

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
Title
Cost analysis of single-use (Ambu® aScope™) and reusable bronchoscopes in the ICU
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13613-016-0228-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. Perbet, M. Blanquet, C. Mourgues, J. Delmas, S. Bertran, B. Longère, V. Boïko-Alaux, P. Chennell, J.-E. Bazin, J.-M. Constantin

Abstract

Flexible optical bronchoscopes are essential for management of airways in ICU, but the conventional reusable flexible scopes have three major drawbacks: high cost of repairs, need for decontamination, and possible transmission of infectious agents. The main objective of this study was to measure the cost of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) and percutaneous tracheostomy (PT) using reusable bronchoscopes and single-use bronchoscopes in an ICU of an university hospital. The secondary objective was to compare the satisfaction of healthcare professionals with reusable and single-use bronchoscopes. The study was performed between August 2009 and July 2014 in a 16-bed ICU. All BAL and PT procedures were performed by experienced healthcare professionals. Cost analysis was performed considering ICU and hospital organization. Healthcare professional satisfaction with single-use and reusable scopes was determined based on eight factors. Sensitivity analysis was performed by applying discount rates (0, 3, and 5%) and by simulation of six situations based on different assumptions. At a discount rate of 3%, the costs per BAL for the two reusable scopes were 188.86€ (scope 1) and 185.94€ (scope 2), and the costs per PT for the reusable scope 1 and scope 2 and single-use scopes were 1613.84€, 410.24€, and 204.49€, respectively. The cost per procedure for the reusable scopes depended on the number of procedures performed, maintenance costs, and decontamination costs. Healthcare professionals were more satisfied with the third-generation single-use Ambu(®) aScope™. The cost per procedure for the single-use scope was not superior to that for reusable scopes. The choice of single-use or reusable bronchoscopes in an ICU should consider the frequency of procedures and the number of bronchoscopes needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 17 20%
Researcher 13 15%
Student > Master 12 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 4%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 22 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 41%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 5%
Engineering 4 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 25 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 March 2020.
All research outputs
#3,698,533
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#420
of 1,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,285
of 424,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#6
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,074 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 424,416 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.