Comparison of Metal and Plastic Disposable Laryngoscope Blade with Reusable Macintosh Blade in Difficult and Inhalation Injury Airway Scenario: A Manikin Study.

BACKGROUND: Single-use plastic blades (SUPB) and single-use metal blades (SUMB) for direct laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation have not yet been compared with reusable metal blades (RUMB) in difficult airway scenarios. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our manikin study was to compare the effectiveness of these different laryngoscope blades in a difficult airway scenario, as well as in a difficult airway scenario with simulated severe inhalation injury. METHODS: Thirty anesthetists performed tracheal intubation (TI) with each of the three laryngoscope blades in the two scenario manikins. RESULTS: In the inhalation injury scenario, SUPB were associated with prolonged intubation times when compared with the metal blades. In the inhalation injury scenario, both metal laryngoscope blades provided a quicker, easier, and safer TI. In the difficult airway scenario, intubation times were significantly prolonged in the SUPB group in comparison to the RUMB group, but there were no significant differences between the SUPB and the SUMB. In this scenario, the RUMB demonstrated the shortest intubation times and seems to be the most effective device. CONCLUSIONS: Generally, results are in line with previous studies showing significant disadvantages of SUPB in both manikin scenarios. Therefore, metal blades might be beneficial, especially in the airway management of patients with inhalation injury.

Cost-effectiveness and clinical efficacy of biliary stents in patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The optimal type of stent for the palliation of malignant biliary obstruction in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with curative intent is unknown. We performed a prospective trial comparing 3 types of biliary stents-fully covered self-expandable metal (fcSEMS), uncovered self-expandable metal (uSEMS), and plastic-to determine which best optimized cost-effectiveness and important clinical outcomes. METHODS: In this prospective randomized trial, consecutive patients with malignant biliary obstruction from newly diagnosed pancreatic adenocarcinoma who were to start neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were randomized to receive fcSEMSs, uSEMSs, or plastic stents during the index ERCP. The primary outcomes were time to stent occlusion, attempted surgical resection, or death after the initiation of neoadjuvant therapy, and the secondary outcomes were total patient costs associated with the stent, including the index ERCP cost, downstream hospitalization cost due to stent occlusion, and the cost associated with procedural adverse event. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were randomized and reached the primary end point: 16 in the fcSEMS group, 17 in the uSEMS group, and 21 in the plastic stent group. No baseline demographic or tumor characteristic differences were noted among the groups. The fcSEMSs had a longer time to stent occlusion compared with uSEMSs and plastic stents (220 vs 74 and 76 days, P < .01), although the groups had equivalent rates of stent occlusion, attempted surgical resection, and death. Although SEMS placement cost more during the index ERCP (uSEMS = $24,874 and fcSEMS = $22,729 vs plastic = $18,701; P < .01), they resulted in higher procedural AE costs per patient (uSEMS = $5522 and fcSEMS = $12,701 vs plastic = $0; P < .01). Conversely, plastic stents resulted in an $11,458 hospitalization cost per patient due to stent occlusion compared with $2301 for uSEMSs and $0 for fcSEMSs (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective trial comparing fcSEMSs, uSEMSs, and plastic stents for malignant biliary obstruction in patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy with curative intent for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, no stent type was superior in optimizing cost-effectiveness, although fcSEMSs resulted in fewer days of neoadjuvant treatment delay and a longer time to stent occlusion. (Clincial trial registration number: NCT01038713.).

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided placement of plastic vs. biflanged metal stents for therapy of walled-off necrosis: a retrospective single-center series.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Recently, a novel fully covered and biflanged metal stent (BFMS)dedicated to the drainage of walled-off necrosis(WON) was developed. The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the safety, efficacy, and cost performance of drainage of WON using the novel BFMS compared with a traditional plastic stent. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 70 patients with symptomatic WON were treated under endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guidance. Initial drainage was conducted using the single gateway technique with placement of one or more plastic stents or a single BFMS.If drainage was unsuccessful,direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN)was performed. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in rates of technical success, clinical success,and adverse events between plastics stents and BFMS, despite the size of WON in the BFMS group being significantly larger than that in the plastic stent group (105.6 vs. 77.1 mm; P=0.003).The mean procedure times for the first EUS-guided drainage and for re-intervention were significantly shorter in the BFMS group than in the plastic stent group (28.8±7.1 vs. 42.6±14.2, respectively,for drainage, P<0.001; and 34.9±8.5 vs.41.8±7.6, respectively, for re-intervention, P<0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the total cost between plastic stent and BFMS use in the treatment of WON ($5352vs. $6274; P=0.25). CONCLUSIONS: Plastic stents and BFMS were safe and effective for the treatment of WON. In particular,BFMS placement appeared to be preferable for initial EUS-guided drainage and additional reintervention(e.g. DEN) as it reduced the procedure time. Prospective randomized controlled trials are warranted.

Economic analysis of endovascular interventions for femoropopliteal arterial disease: a systematic review and budget impact model for the United States and Germany.

OBJECTIVES: To study the economic impact on payers and providers of the four main endovascular strategies for the treatment of infrainguinal peripheral artery disease. BACKGROUND: Bare metal stents (BMS), drug-eluting stents (DES), and drug-coated balloons (DCB) are associated with lower target lesion revascularization (TLR) probabilities than percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA), but the economic impact is unknown. METHODS: In December 2012, PubMed and Embase were systematically searched for studies with TLR as an endpoint. The 24-month probability of TLR for each treatment was weighted by sample size. A decision-analytic Markov model was used to assess the budget impact from payers' and facility-providers' perspectives of the four index procedure strategies (BMS, DES, DCB, and PTA). Base cases were developed for U.S. Medicare and the German statutory sickness fund perspectives using current 2013 reimbursement rates. RESULTS: Thirteen studies with 2,406 subjects were included. The reported probability of TLR in the identified studies varied widely, particularly following treatment with PTA or BMS. The pooled 24-month probabilities were 14.3%, 19.3%, 28.1%, and 40.3% for DCB, DES, BMS, and PTA, respectively. The drug-eluting strategies had a lower projected budget impact over 24 months compared to BMS and PTA in both the U.S. Medicare (DCB: $10,214; DES: $12,904; uncoated balloons $13,114; BMS $13,802) and German public health care systems (DCB €3,619; DES €3,632; BMS €4,026; PTA €4,290). CONCLUSIONS: DCB and DES, compared to BMS and PTA, are associated with lower probabilities of target lesion revascularization and cost savings for U.S. and German payers.

Randomized pilot study to compare metal needles versus plastic cannulae in the development of complications in hemodialysis access.

BACKGROUND: Hemodialysis requires needle insertions every treatment. Needle injury (mechanical or hemodynamic) may cause complications (aneurysms/stenosis) that compromise dialysis delivery requiring interventions. Metal needles have a sharp slanted "V"-shaped cutting tip; plastic cannulae have a dull round tip and four side holes. Preliminary observations demonstrated a difference in intradialytic blood flow images and mean Doppler velocities at cannulation sites between the two devices. Complications from mechanical and hemodynamic trauma requiring interventions were compared in each group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In all, 33 patients (13 females and 17 new accesses) were randomized to metal group (n = 17) and plastic group (n = 16). Mechanical trauma was minimized by having five nurses performing ultrasound-guided cannulations. Complications were identified by the clinician and addressed by the interventionalists, both blinded to study participation. Patients were followed for up to 12 months. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were not significant. Procedures to treat complications along cannulation segments increased from 0.41 to 1.29 per patient (metal group) and decreased from 1.25 to 0.69 per patient (plastic group; p = 0.004). The relative risks of having an intervention (relative risk = 1.5, 95% confidence interval = 0.88-2.67) and having an infiltration during hemodialysis (relative risk = 2.26, 95% confidence interval = 1.03-4.97) were higher for metal needles. Time to first intervention trended in favor of plastic cannula (p = 0.069). Cost of supplies for these interventions was approximately CAD$20,000 lower for the plastic group. CONCLUSION: Decreased burden of illness related to cannulation (less infiltrations during hemodialysis) and Qb were associated with plastic cannulae. Decreased procedure costs were suggested during the study period in the plastic group.

Economics of All-Polyethylene Versus Metal-Backed Tibial Prosthesis Designs.

With the large number of total knee arthroplasties being performed and expectations that these numbers will be on the rise over the coming decades, efforts to provide cost-efficient care are of greater interest. The preferred design of knee arthroplasty implants has changed over time, with the original all-polyethylene tibial (APT) design being replaced by metal-backed tibial (MBT) components, as well as more recent considerations of newer APT designs. Modern APT components have been shown to have similar or superior outcomes than MBT components. Despite their limitations, APT components can be used to reduce the economic burden to the provider, medical institution, and health care system as a whole. There is a paucity of evidence-based literature directly comparing the cost associated with APT and MBT components. The purpose of this report is to review the literature to assess the available data regarding direct and indirect costs of both designs so that orthopedic surgeons can account for economic differences in everyday practice. [Orthopedics. 2016; 39(3):S61-S66.].

Comparison of patency and cost-effectiveness of self-expandable metal and plastic stents used for malignant biliary strictures: a Polish single-center study.

INTRODUCTION: Most patients with malignant biliary obstruction are suited only for palliation by endoscopic drainage with plastic stents (PS) or self-expandable metal stents (SEMS). OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcome and costs of biliary stenting with SEMS and PS in patients with malignant biliary strictures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 114 patients with malignant jaundice who underwent 376 endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage (ERBD) were studied. RESULTS: ERBD with the placement of PS was performed in 80 patients, with one-step SEMS in 20 patients and two-step SEMS in 14 patients. Significantly fewer ERBD interventions were performed in patients with one-step SEMS than PS or the two-step SEMS technique (2.0±1.12 vs. 3.1±1.7 or 5.7±2.1, respectively, P<0.0001). The median hospitalization duration per procedure was similar for the three groups of patients. The patients' survival time was the longest in the two-step SEMS group in comparison with the one-step SEMS and PS groups (596±270 vs. 276±141 or 208±219 days, P<0.001). Overall median time to recurrent biliary obstruction was 89.3±159 days for PS and 120.6±101 days for SEMS (P=0.01). The total cost of hospitalization with ERBD was higher for two-step SEMS than for one-step SEMS or PS (1448±312, 1152±135 and 977±156&OV0556;, P<0.0001). However, the estimated annual cost of medical care for one-step SEMS was higher than that for the two-step SEMS or PS groups (4618, 4079, and 3995&OV0556;, respectively). CONCLUSION: Biliary decompression by SEMS is associated with longer patency and reduced number of auxiliary procedures; however, repeated PS insertions still remain the most cost-effective strategy.

Cost analysis of metallic ureteral stents with 12 months of follow-up.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The metallic ureteral stent was first developed for patients with ureteral obstruction related to malignant disease, but it can be used in all patients needing chronic indwelling ureteral stents, including those with benign disease. The traditional method of polymer stent management often necessitates multiple exchanges per year depending on patient and logistical factors. This has significant direct financial cost and likely a negative effect on patients' overall health. The objective was to analyze and compare the costs associated with chronic indwelling metal and silicone-based ureteral stents. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective database of patients undergoing metal stent placement from February 2008 to June 2010 was reviewed. Mean charges for a single traditional nonmetal and metal stent insertion were calculated. Charges were based on direct hospital charges related to stent cost and surgery. Cost data were based on the fiscal year 2010 cost for polymer or metal stent insertions. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients underwent metal stent placement at our institution. Of these, three traditional stent placements were omitted from analysis because of bundled charges for ureteroscopy at the same setting. Mean charges per single traditional and metal stent placement were $6072.75 and $9469.50, respectively. The estimated annual charges for traditional stents (3-6 exchanges) would be $18,218.25 to $36,436.50. Compared with metal stents, this is a potential financial savings of 48% to 74%. The mean direct cost to patients was 21.6% and 25.4% of the charges for metal and polymer stents, respectively. No patient needed early discontinuation of his or her metal stent because of lower urinary tract symptoms or gross hematuria. CONCLUSIONS: Metal stents are well tolerated by patients with ureteral obstruction of various etiologies and provide a significant financial benefit compared with polymer ureteral stents. For patients who are not fit for surgical intervention regarding their ureteral occlusive disease, the metal Resonance stent is a financially advantageous and well-tolerated option.

Self-expanding metal stents versus plastic prostheses in the palliation of malignant dysphagia: long-term outcome of 153 consecutive patients.

BACKGROUND: Malignant dysphagia due to esophagogastric cancer is associated with poor overall prognosis. Placements of self-expandable metal stents or plastic tubes are established methods as palliative treatment options. As an alternative and/or complementary therapy, radiologic techniques (external beam radiation/brachytherapy) and locally endoscopic techniques (laser, APC-beamer, PDT) are often used. STUDY AND GOALS: Retrospective trial of 153 patients treated in our department between 1993 and 2001. Forty-five patients received a plastic tube (Group A) and 108 patients were treated with metal stents (Group B). Both groups were compared for improvement of dysphagia score, survival, recurrent dysphagia and complications. RESULTS: Stent placement was successful in 41 of 45 (93%) patients of Group A and 107 of 108 (99%) of Group B. The median dysphagia score improved significantly in Group A (from 3.03 to 1.55, P = 0.010) and Group B (from 2.77 to 1.44, P = 0.009). Recurrent dysphagia was noted in 12 of 45 (27%) patients of Group A and 27 of 108 (25%) patients of Group B. Median survival time after stent insertion was 78 days (Group A) and 113 days (Group B). Overall complications occurred in 15 of 45 (33%) patients of Group A and 28 of 108 (26%) patients of Group B. However, significantly (P = 0.05) more major complications were seen in Group A than in Group B (22% vs. 9%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate a marginal clinical benefit for metal stents versus plastic tubes in malignant dysphagia in the long run. However, metal stents seem to be safer and associated with a prolonged improvement of dysphagia score.

A prospective, within-patient comparison between metal butterfly needles and Teflon cannulae in subcutaneous infusion of drugs to terminally ill hospice patients.

We performed a prospective study of hospice in-patients requiring a syringe driver (SD), to determine the site duration and tolerability of metal butterfly needles compared to Teflon cannulae. Using patients as their own control, prescribed medications were divided equally between two SDs (Graseby MS16a), for delivery over 24 h. A butterfly infusion (Flosafer, 25 gauge) was connected to one SD and a Teflon cannula (Abbocath-T, 24 gauge), to the second. These were inserted subcutaneously (s.c.) on opposite sides of the body at comparable sites; oedematous, broken or painful sites were excluded. SD sites were examined at 4-hourly intervals. The study was terminated when both devices had required resiting. Needle and cannula times were compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Thirty patients entered the study, 13 males and 17 females, mean age (standard deviation): 70 (11) years. Thirteen patients completed the study. Nine patients died and eight patients discontinued the study before both needle and cannula had been resited. All 30 patients are included in the analysis. The time from insertion to resiting of the cannula was significantly longer than the needle: P < 0.0002, median (range) 93.5 (22.8-263.5) h versus 42.8 (7.5-162.3) h, respectively. The cost of the needle versus cannula is 1.93 Pounds versus 2.51 Pounds, respectively. Teflon cannulae have a median life span twice that of metal butterfly needles and are a cost-effective alternative for administration of medications by s.c. infusion in terminally ill patients.

Biliary stents in malignant obstructive jaundice due to pancreatic carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Obstructive jaundice frequently complicates pancreatic carcinoma and is associated with complications such as malabsorption, coagulopathy, progressive hepatocellular dysfunction, and cholangitis in addition to disabling pruritus, which greatly interferes with terminal patients' quality of life. Endoscopic placement of biliary stents decreases the risk of these complications and is considered the procedure of choice for palliation for patients with unresectable tumors. We used decision analysis with Markov modeling to compare the cost-effectivenesses of plastic stents and metal stents in patients with unresectable pancreatic carcinoma. METHODS: A model of the natural history of unresectable pancreatic carcinoma was constructed using probabilities derived from the literature. Cost estimates were obtained from Medicare reimbursement rates and supplemented by the literature. Two strategies were evaluated: 1) initial endoscopic plastic stent placement and 2) initial endoscopic metal stent placement. We compared total costs and performed cost-effectiveness analysis in these strategies. The outcome measures were quality-adjusted life months. Sensitivity analyses were performed on selected variables. RESULTS: Our baseline analysis showed that initial plastic stent placement was associated with a total cost of $13,879/patient and 1.799 quality-adjusted life months. Initial placement of a metal stent cost $13,466/patient and conferred 1.832 quality-adjusted life months. Among the variables examined, expected patient survival was demonstrated by sensitivity analyses to have the most influence on the results of the model. CONCLUSION: Initial endoscopic placement of a metal stent is a cost-saving strategy compared to initial plastic stent placement, particularly in patients expected to survive longer than 6 months.