ArticleGMS hygiene and infection control2026
Cost analysis of single-use versus reusable bronchoscopes in German intensive care units.
Article in GMS hygiene and infection control, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Bedside bronchoscopy is widely used in intensive care units (ICUs) for a variety of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Single-use flexible bronchoscopes (SFB) have emerged as an increasingly utilized alternative to reusable flexible bronchoscopes (RFB), eliminating costs related to device repairs, reprocessing, and routine microbiological surveillance. Beyond clinical outcome parameters, economic and organizational factors as well as aspects of patient safety, including the availability of diagnostic procedures and infection prevention considerations, play an important role in the choice between RSB and SFB. Methods: Using a cost-minimization approach, we compared the costs associated with RFB and SFB during a two-year study period in a German tertiary care hospital with two surgical and two non-surgical ICUs, identifying key cost drivers, assessed break-even points under different utilization scenarios through sensitivity analyses, and evaluated their implications for procurement decisions and implementation strategies in the ICU setting. Results: During the study period from 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2024, on average 1,253 bronchoscopic procedures were performed in the ICU setting. Cost per procedure were € 346.19 per use for SFB and € 97.28 for RFB with a break-even point for cost effectiveness of RFB of 317 procedures per year. Sensitivity analysis showed robustness of the results in our setting of high procedure volume to variable maintenance costs and reduction in investment costs of SFB. Conclusion: For the German ICU setting with in-house reprocessing and high procedure volume, RFB is cost effective compared to SFB.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.