Aditi Bhatt1, Robin Prabhu1, Kayomarz Sethna2, Sajin Tharayil3, Madhan Kumar3. 1. Department of Surgical Oncology, Fortis Hospital, 154/9, Bannerghatta road, Opposite IIM, Bangalore, Bangalore 560076, India. 2. Department of Surgery, Sion Hospital, Mumbai, India. 3. Department of perfusion medicine, Fortis Hospital, Bangalore, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: HIPEC using custom-made machines (CMM) remains unaffordable for many patients in low-income countries. We describe the assembly and use homemade HIPEC machine (HMM) as a cost-effective alternative. METHODS: We evaluated the cost of setting up the HMM, maintenance, expenses per procedure as well as technical aspects including target temperature and flow rate, safety aspects, technical failures and the technical support required. The comparison with CMM was based on the manufacturer information and published reports and not on personal experience. RESULTS: Form 2011 to 2017, we performed HIPEC (Coliseum technique) in 81 patients using HMM. HMM was a cardiopulmonary bypass machine available in our institution, with an additional water bath. Flow rate was 2 L/min and target temperature between 41 and 43 °C could be achieved in all cases. There were no technical failures and there was no safety issue recorded. Routine maintenance was provided yearly by an in-house technician. Chemotherapy costs (between 20 and 500 USD) were independent from the devices used. Cost of consumables was 450 USD/procedure, as compared to 1800 to 3500 USD/procedure for commercially available products. Investment cost for CMM is between 70,000 and 1,35,000 USD. CONCLUSIONS: The HMM is a cost-effective option allowing access to HIPEC to patients in low-resource countries without loss of efficacy or additional safety concerns. The initial cost and cost per procedure were substantially less for HMM while the maintenance of both systems was similar in terms of complexity and cost. The CMM are more user-friendly and require less technical support.
BACKGROUND: HIPEC using custom-made machines (CMM) remains unaffordable for many patients in low-income countries. We describe the assembly and use homemade HIPEC machine (HMM) as a cost-effective alternative. METHODS: We evaluated the cost of setting up the HMM, maintenance, expenses per procedure as well as technical aspects including target temperature and flow rate, safety aspects, technical failures and the technical support required. The comparison with CMM was based on the manufacturer information and published reports and not on personal experience. RESULTS: Form 2011 to 2017, we performed HIPEC (Coliseum technique) in 81 patients using HMM. HMM was a cardiopulmonary bypass machine available in our institution, with an additional water bath. Flow rate was 2 L/min and target temperature between 41 and 43 °C could be achieved in all cases. There were no technical failures and there was no safety issue recorded. Routine maintenance was provided yearly by an in-house technician. Chemotherapy costs (between 20 and 500 USD) were independent from the devices used. Cost of consumables was 450 USD/procedure, as compared to 1800 to 3500 USD/procedure for commercially available products. Investment cost for CMM is between 70,000 and 1,35,000 USD. CONCLUSIONS: The HMM is a cost-effective option allowing access to HIPEC to patients in low-resource countries without loss of efficacy or additional safety concerns. The initial cost and cost per procedure were substantially less for HMM while the maintenance of both systems was similar in terms of complexity and cost. The CMM are more user-friendly and require less technical support.
Authors: D Elias; M Bonnay; J M Puizillou; S Antoun; S Demirdjian; Otmany A El; J P Pignon; L Drouard-Troalen; J F Ouellet; M Ducreux Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Terence C Chua; Brendan J Moran; Paul H Sugarbaker; Edward A Levine; Olivier Glehen; François N Gilly; Dario Baratti; Marcello Deraco; Dominique Elias; Armando Sardi; Winston Liauw; Tristan D Yan; Pedro Barrios; Alberto Gómez Portilla; Ignace H J T de Hingh; Wim P Ceelen; Joerg O Pelz; Pompiliu Piso; Santiago González-Moreno; Kurt Van Der Speeten; David L Morris Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-05-21 Impact factor: 44.544