OBJECTIVES

Both systems have different technical characteristics. Therefore, procedure times, adverse events, patient outcomes and economical, organizational and managerial costs should be assessed. The purpose of this research is to objectify the existing differences through an exhaustive, cost-comparison analysis.

METHODS

Drivers of costs and real-world data were collected from four Chilean Hospitals – Hospital Regional Osorno, Hospital Regional Concepción, Hospital La Serena and Hospital San Martín de Quillota. The costs of medical equipment, pharmaceutical drugs and medical procedures were assessed from (1) Public Tenders’ Data (2) Systematic literature review on PubMed and the ISPOR Scientific Presentations Database. A cost simulation model has been used to assess the data. For published data, a set range has been created to account for potential local variances. 10,000 different hospital scenarios (computer iterations) have been assessed.

RESULTS

In 88% of the computerized scenarios, cTPE was more cost-efficient than mTPE. The main key driver for cost differences was the clotting cost, being 19% of the total mTPE costs, and less than 1% for cTPE. The highest cost driver in both systems was the disposable cost, amounting to more than 50% in mTPE, and more than 65% in cTPE. Although there were differences on absolute procedure time costs ($34.9 USD in mTPE vs. $24.4 USD in cTPE) their relative weight in the total costs from both systems were similar (8.5% vs. 7.5%). Similar differences on absolute venous access costs ($48 USD in mTPE vs. $62 USD in cTPE) were also found. The regression analysis was robust with an Adjusted R² of 0.92 and all variables were statistically significant (p-value < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The data analysis confirms the cost-effectiveness of cTPE over mTPE in 88% of the cases from 10,000 computerized iterations. Clotting events can negatively influence the cost-effectiveness of mTPE procedures and potentially impact patient outcomes.