RESUMO
Purpose: Healthcare has a large environmental footprint, not least due to the wide use of single-use supplies. Reprocessing of medical devices is a well-established, regulated process, and can reduce its environmental impact. This life cycle assessment (LCA) compares the environmental footprint of a single-use and a reprocessed version of otherwise identical intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) sleeves. Materials and Methods: The LCA was performed in accordance with the international standard ISO 14044 using the Environmental Footprint 3.0 (EF) method for the assessment. Data were obtained in cooperation with IPC sleeve manufacturers. Where no primary data were available, ecoinvent database records were used. The functional unit is five hospital treatments applying IPC. The robustness of the results was interrogated in sensitivity analyses of the energy mix, the ethylene oxide emissions during reprocessing, and the transport distances. The impact of waste reduction on hospital disposal costs was calculated. Results: The environmental footprint of reprocessed IPC sleeves was found to be reduced in all categories compared to single-use devices, leading to a weighted normalized reduction of 43% across all categories. In a breakdown of the LCA results, reprocessed IPC sleeves were found to reduce the carbon footprint by 40%, with the treatment of five patients with single-use IPC sleeves creating 7 kg CO2eq, compared to 4.2 kg CO2eq from reprocessed sleeves. Waste disposal costs were also reduced by 90%. Conclusion: Reprocessing of IPC sleeves provides an environmental and economic benefit in comparison to single-use devices.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using mechanical thromboprophylaxis for patients undergoing a cesarean delivery in Brazil. METHODS: A decision-analytic model built in TreeAge software was used to compare the cost and effectiveness of intermittent pneumatic compression to prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin or no prophylaxis from the perspective of the hospital. Related adverse events were venous thromboembolism, minor bleeding, and major bleeding. Model data were sourced from peer-reviewed studies through a structured literature search. A willingness-to-pay threshold of R$15,000 per avoided adverse event was adopted. Scenario, one-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of uncertainties on the results. RESULTS: The costs of care related to venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and associated adverse events ranged from R$914 for no prophylaxis to R$1,301 for low-molecular-weight heparin. With an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of R$7,843 per adverse event avoided. Intermittent pneumatic compression was cost-effective compared to no prophylaxis. With lower costs and improved effectiveness, intermittent pneumatic compression dominated low-molecular-weight heparin. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that the probability of being cost-effective was comparable for intermittent pneumatic compression and no prophylaxis, with low-molecular-weight heparin unlikely to be considered cost-effective (0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Intermittent pneumatic compression could be a cost-effective option and is likely to be more appropriate than low-molecular-weight heparin when used for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis for cesarean delivery in Brazil. Use of thromboprophylaxis should be a risk-stratified, individualized approach.
