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. - Info and Reading Options

The Internet Archive:

This article is from <a href="//archive.org/search.php?query=journaltitle%3A%28Medical%20Devices%20(Auckland,%20N.Z.)%29" rel="nofollow">Medical Devices (Auckland, N.Z.)</a>, <a href="//archive.org/search.php?query=journaltitle%3A%28Medical%20Devices%20(Auckland,%20N.Z.)%29%20AND%20volume%3A%286%29" rel="nofollow">volume 6</a>.<h2>Abstract</h2>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.

Search for “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.” downloads:

Visit our Downloads Search page to see if downloads are available.

Find “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.” in Libraries Near You:

Read or borrow “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.” from your local library.

• The WorldCat Libraries Catalog: Find a copy of “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.” at a library near you.