E Baris1, M McGregor. 1. Département d'Administration de la santé, Université de Montréal, Que.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and potential cost savings of hemodialyzer reuse. DATA SOURCES: All English and French articles published from 1960 to 1991 related to hemodialyzer reuse (retrieved through an Index Medicus and MEDLINE search [corrected]), the indexes of eight North American journals from 1960 onward, conference proceedings, association guidelines, and US and Canadian laws and regulations. RESULTS: For health care personnel the reuse of hemodialyzers did not entail any increased risk of infection or exposure to toxic substances if proper control measures were taken. For patients there was no evidence to suggest any excess risk of complications or death as long as precise and appropriate procedures are observed. The "first-use syndrome" can be prevented and should no longer be considered as a reason to favour reuse. A cost-minimization analysis indicated that five uses might save up to $3629 per patient yearly. Thus, the adoption of a policy of reuse in Canada for all eligible patients undergoing long-term hemodialysis could result in direct savings of about $5.8 to $8.9 million per year. CONCLUSION: The health risks associated with hemodialyzer reuse can be reduced to acceptable levels through the rigorous observance of proper quality-assurance and quality-control measures and the use of automated reconditioning equipment. Such a policy could achieve modest savings for the health care system. A decision to reuse should be formally adopted by the institution and accompanied by a precise definition of the standards of quality assurance and control.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and potential cost savings of hemodialyzer reuse. DATA SOURCES: All English and French articles published from 1960 to 1991 related to hemodialyzer reuse (retrieved through an Index Medicus and MEDLINE search [corrected]), the indexes of eight North American journals from 1960 onward, conference proceedings, association guidelines, and US and Canadian laws and regulations. RESULTS: For health care personnel the reuse of hemodialyzers did not entail any increased risk of infection or exposure to toxic substances if proper control measures were taken. For patients there was no evidence to suggest any excess risk of complications or death as long as precise and appropriate procedures are observed. The "first-use syndrome" can be prevented and should no longer be considered as a reason to favour reuse. A cost-minimization analysis indicated that five uses might save up to $3629 per patient yearly. Thus, the adoption of a policy of reuse in Canada for all eligible patients undergoing long-term hemodialysis could result in direct savings of about $5.8 to $8.9 million per year. CONCLUSION: The health risks associated with hemodialyzer reuse can be reduced to acceptable levels through the rigorous observance of proper quality-assurance and quality-control measures and the use of automated reconditioning equipment. Such a policy could achieve modest savings for the health care system. A decision to reuse should be formally adopted by the institution and accompanied by a precise definition of the standards of quality assurance and control.