Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Single-Use EEG Cup Electrodes Compared with Reusable EEG Cup Electrodes

Anne Sohrt, Anders Mærkedahl () and William V. Padula
Additional contact information
Anne Sohrt: Ambu A/S
Anders Mærkedahl: Ambu A/S
William V. Padula: Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

PharmacoEconomics - Open, 2019, vol. 3, issue 2, No 15, 265-272

Abstract: Abstract Background Hospital-acquired infections are one of the most frequent adverse events among patients receiving healthcare. Reusable electroencephalography cup electrodes (EEG-CE) pose a risk of infection due to cross-contamination, which can be eliminated by replacing reusable EEG-CE with single-use EEG-CE. Objective The objective was to investigate the cost effectiveness of using single-use EEG-CE instead of reusable EEG-CE when the risk of sepsis is considered. Methods A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted, using a decision analytic model to assess the potential effects and costs of using single-use EEG-CE as an alternative to reusable EEG-CE. The cost data regarding the reusable EEG-CE were assessed through interviews with four hospitals. To identify the risk of sepsis, a retrospective observational cohort study was conducted using data from Truven Health Analytics, with a total of 73,834 patients analyzed in the USA during 1 February 2014 through 15 December 2014. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was conducted to test the impact of the variables simultaneously and the robustness of the result. Results The incidence of sepsis was 33 cases per 100,000 EEG procedures. The acquisition and reprocessing costs of reusable EEG-CE were $US3.25 and $US5.57, respectively. The base-case analysis showed that single-use EEG-CE are cost effective compared with reusable EEG-CE, although the decision was not robust, with the PSA showing that 40% of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios indicated that single-use EEG-CE were more effective but more expensive. Conclusion This study indicates single-use EEG-CE are associated with cost savings and a possible reduction in the risk of cross-contamination.

Date: 2019
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-018-0090-3 Abstract (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:3:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s41669-018-0090-3

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/adis/journal/41669

DOI: 10.1007/s41669-018-0090-3

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics - Open is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics - Open from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().