Literature DB >> 24506393

Cost analysis of adult parenteral nutrition systems: three-compartment bag versus customized.

David Berlana1, Pilar Sabin2, Vicente Gimeno-Ballester3, Rosa Romero-Jiménez4, Amalia Zapata-Rojas3, Esther Marquez3, Julio Martínez-Cutillas2, Joan Anton Schoenenberger-Arnaiz3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Parenteral nutrition (PN) is a costly technology used widely to provide nutrition to patients who have an inaccessible or non-functioning intestine. Two all-in-one systems currently being used are customized formulations and three-compartment bags.
OBJECTIVE: To provide a systematic cost comparison of the two all-in-one PN systems: individualized (made from nutrient solutions) versus commercialized (made from three-compartment bag), both prepared in hospital pharmacies.
SETTING: This study was conducted in three public Spanish hospitals.
METHOD: We conducted a cost-minimization study to analyze prospectively the total cost of PN bags, accounting for all of the processes involved in preparing and delivering PN bags (cost of manpower, nutrition solutions, medical supplies and quality controls) in three different healthcare settings. To compare therapeutic alternatives of equivalent nutritional value, the study was performed for the most frequently employed formulation and similar to commercial preparations. A univariate sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of different rates of use of three-compartment PN bag.
RESULTS: 157 routine acts of PN bag preparation (65 customized and 92 three-compartment) were observed and timed over 9 days. Total costs of the 157 PN bags were included in the study. Mean costs of customized bags were higher than three-compartment bags, 51.16 ± 5.63 € versus 39.69 ± 3.00 € respectively (p < 0.01). Manpower costs were responsible for the majority of the differences found (70%). The time to complete an adult bag for the hospital compounded system was a mean of 25.9 minutes longer than the three-compartment system. In scenarios using a three-compartment system for 30%, 70% and 90% of PN provision, a cost savings of 4.3%, 10.1% and 12.9% respectively could be achieved. Greatest rates of changing from customized bags (70% and 90%), in a hospital with 1,800 PN bags/year, might reduce the annual budget by 9306 € and 11,964.8 €, respectively. Meanwhile, in a large facility the savings for 8,000 TPN days would be 64,248 € and 82,605 €, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Since seeking cost-reduction of effective treatments is needed, the use of three-compartment bags for standard adult PN could lead to cost savings. Our data should be helpful for health care providers to calculate their own cost of administer. Copyright AULA MEDICA EDICIONES 2013. Published by AULA MEDICA. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24506393     DOI: 10.3305/nutr hosp.v28in06.6862

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nutr Hosp        ISSN: 0212-1611            Impact factor:   1.057


  5 in total

1.  Current status of parenteral nutrition and enteral nutrition application: an assessment of nutritional prescriptions from 59 hospitals in the People's Republic of China.

Authors:  Gang Han; Zhenwei Yu; Ke Ma
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2015-02-10       Impact factor: 2.423

2.  Efficacy, Safety, and Preparation of Standardized Parenteral Nutrition Regimens: Three-Chamber Bags vs Compounded Monobags-A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Single-Blind Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Jianchun Yu; Guohao Wu; Yun Tang; Yingjiang Ye; Zhongtao Zhang
Journal:  Nutr Clin Pract       Date:  2017-05-24       Impact factor: 3.080

3.  Cost of early-stage mycosis fungoides treatments in Spain.

Authors:  Pablo Luis Ortiz-Romero; Octavio Servitje; María Teresa Estrach; Rosa María Izu-Belloso; Ricardo Fernández-de-Misa; Fernando Gallardo; Noemí López-Martínez; Alejandro Pérez-Mitru
Journal:  Clinicoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2020-02-12

4.  Safety and efficacy of an olive oil-based triple-chamber bag for parenteral nutrition: a prospective, randomized, multi-center clinical trial in China.

Authors:  Zhen-Yi Jia; Jun Yang; Yang Xia; Da-Nian Tong; Gary P Zaloga; Huan-Long Qin
Journal:  Nutr J       Date:  2015-11-14       Impact factor: 3.271

5.  Cost-effectiveness of the hospital nutrition screening tool CIPA.

Authors:  José Pablo Suárez-Llanos; Laura Vallejo-Torres; Miguel Ángel García-Bello; Carolina Hernández-Carballo; Eduardo Mauricio Calderón-Ledezma; Adriá Rosat-Rodrigo; Irina Delgado-Brito; Francisca Pereyra-García-Castro; Nestor Benitez-Brito; Nieves Felipe-Pérez; Yolanda Ramallo-Fariña; Juan Carlos Romero-Pérez
Journal:  Arch Med Sci       Date:  2019-01-11       Impact factor: 3.318

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.