PURPOSE: Cost analysis of autologous blood conservation measures compared to corresponding homologous blood products. METHODS: This study is based on data from 5,017 patients undergoing major bone and joint surgery in 1993 and participating preoperatively in autologous blood donation (ABD) (with hemoseparation (HS) into autologous packed red blood cells (APRBC) and autologous fresh-frozen-plasma (AFFP)), autologous plasmapheresis (APPH) for harvesting AFFP as well as intra-/postoperative blood salvage with mechanically processed autologous transfusion (MAT). RESULTS: Total costs for 3,110 ABD with HS amount to DM 517,586.00 resulting in about DM 167.00 per U of APRBC plus AFFP. Comparatively, costs per U of HPRBC is about DM 202.00. Break-even-point (BEP) is calculated with 2,258 U of APRBC (without considering AFFP additionally obtained by HS). Taking into account this AFFP due to coagulation in 20% lowers BEP to 1,819 U of APRBC. However, this analysis compares the "mere" cost figures only, but does not consider the extent of ABD-induced increase in rbc mass compared to that of HPRBC. Under these circumstances calculated cost per unit of APRBC is up to 90 per cent higher than for 1 U of HPRBC. Total cost for PPH with 15,570 U of AFFP amounts to about DM 1,824,162.00, resulting in about DM 115.00 per U of AFFP. Comparatively, cost per U of HFFP is about DM 136.00. BEP is calculated with 11,595 U of AFFP. However, when considering AFFP on coagulatory reasons' with 20% only, no BEP can be calculated and AFFP is not proven to be cost-efficient. Under these conditions it is about 2.8-times more expensive than HFFP; and if considering AFFP a volume substitute it is even more than twelve times more expensive than artificial colloids (e.g. HES 6%, 200/0.5). MAT--2,690 sets and patients with a total of 5,326 processing cycles--causes a total cost of about DM 1,356,161.00, resulting in about DM 504.00 per set and patient. Under our conditions MAT is not cost-efficient compared to HPRBC as it is about two times more expensive than HPRBC. For reaching cost efficiency the number of processing cycles is either to be increased from about 2 to about 4 cycles per set and patient or hematocrit of the rbc-product obtained by MAT is clearly to be increased. CONCLUSIONS: The "mere" figures of this cost analysis of APRBC versus HPRBC as well as of AFFP versus HFFP and HES appear in favour of the autologous products. However, such an analysis should consider--besides the costs--both the increase in rbc-mass obtained by ABD or MAT, versus homologous rbc, and the indication for administering AFFP. This study does not prove our autologous blood conservation measures to be cost efficient compared to homologous blood products. Therefore, these data may cause a critically reflection on established concepts of autologous transfusion measures and may initiate promoting new and more cost efficient constellations/alternatives of blood conservation measures.
PURPOSE: Cost analysis of autologous blood conservation measures compared to corresponding homologous blood products. METHODS: This study is based on data from 5,017 patients undergoing major bone and joint surgery in 1993 and participating preoperatively in autologous blood donation (ABD) (with hemoseparation (HS) into autologous packed red blood cells (APRBC) and autologous fresh-frozen-plasma (AFFP)), autologous plasmapheresis (APPH) for harvesting AFFP as well as intra-/postoperative blood salvage with mechanically processed autologous transfusion (MAT). RESULTS: Total costs for 3,110 ABD with HS amount to DM 517,586.00 resulting in about DM 167.00 per U of APRBC plus AFFP. Comparatively, costs per U of HPRBC is about DM 202.00. Break-even-point (BEP) is calculated with 2,258 U of APRBC (without considering AFFP additionally obtained by HS). Taking into account this AFFP due to coagulation in 20% lowers BEP to 1,819 U of APRBC. However, this analysis compares the "mere" cost figures only, but does not consider the extent of ABD-induced increase in rbc mass compared to that of HPRBC. Under these circumstances calculated cost per unit of APRBC is up to 90 per cent higher than for 1 U of HPRBC. Total cost for PPH with 15,570 U of AFFP amounts to about DM 1,824,162.00, resulting in about DM 115.00 per U of AFFP. Comparatively, cost per U of HFFP is about DM 136.00. BEP is calculated with 11,595 U of AFFP. However, when considering AFFP on coagulatory reasons' with 20% only, no BEP can be calculated and AFFP is not proven to be cost-efficient. Under these conditions it is about 2.8-times more expensive than HFFP; and if considering AFFP a volume substitute it is even more than twelve times more expensive than artificial colloids (e.g. HES 6%, 200/0.5). MAT--2,690 sets and patients with a total of 5,326 processing cycles--causes a total cost of about DM 1,356,161.00, resulting in about DM 504.00 per set and patient. Under our conditions MAT is not cost-efficient compared to HPRBC as it is about two times more expensive than HPRBC. For reaching cost efficiency the number of processing cycles is either to be increased from about 2 to about 4 cycles per set and patient or hematocrit of the rbc-product obtained by MAT is clearly to be increased. CONCLUSIONS: The "mere" figures of this cost analysis of APRBC versus HPRBC as well as of AFFP versus HFFP and HES appear in favour of the autologous products. However, such an analysis should consider--besides the costs--both the increase in rbc-mass obtained by ABD or MAT, versus homologous rbc, and the indication for administering AFFP. This study does not prove our autologous blood conservation measures to be cost efficient compared to homologous blood products. Therefore, these data may cause a critically reflection on established concepts of autologous transfusion measures and may initiate promoting new and more cost efficient constellations/alternatives of blood conservation measures.