TS03 Inc Trust Units TSTIF

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Low Temp vs Steam... 6% RR for LTS

[echo2]

Today's American Journal of Infection Control features an interesting and very relevant article comparing the cost over a 10 year period of a prominent but fading low temperature H2O2 system with steam sterilization, and shows that even this relatively inefficient competitor's system is more cost effective than steam for scopes and other similar instruments that are approved for sterilization in both an H2O2 system and steam. Of course, the study does not compare complex scopes that cannot be sterilized in steam systems nor those complex scopes, including duodenoscopes, gastroscopes, for example, that cannot be sterilized using the Sterrad system (because they are too complex) but that can be sterilized in the TSO3 VP4. (The VP4 is validated for duodenoscopes such as the Olympus Q180V only in Canada and the EU, as you know, with FDA submission and approval for a competitor's duodenoscope (?Pentax or ?Fuji) hopefully to be completed by the end of 2017.) 

Of note, this study was paid for by JnJ's ASP division that produces the Sterrad unit studied. One might anticipate that Getinge or TSO3 will be working on similar analytics with far superior results to those shown here. The Sterrad 100NX can handle only one (?theoretically ?2) of a limited range of lumened scopes to a maximum weight of ?12-14 lbs, whereas the Steris VPro can only handle some lumened scopes (two - 2) up to 24 lbs; but, the VP4 is in a class of its own being able to handle a significantly broader range of scopes in mixed loads up to 75 lbs!

Thus, if the relatively antiquated (despite the recent software upgrade) and far lower capacity Sterrad show a rate of return of 6% in cost savings over a 10 year period, what savings would a hospital see by going to the best in class TSO3 Sterizone VP4 low temperature unit?

And, what saviings would a hospital see if they knew that they could get 8-9 cycles per day out of their VP4 with 3 - 6 x the capacity of the competition? This is particularly relevant to those hospitals that do not yet have a low temperature solution available or are replacing a competitor's unit. Could the cost-benefits of choosing the superior VP4 be any clearer? (And, could not just the sales but the consumables revenue to TSO3 be any more lucrative?)

Despite its obvious limitiations and flaws, the paper at least shows that a low temperature system can compete very well and save money over steam:

https://www.ajicjournal.org/article/S0196-6553(17)30147-5/fulltext

Just FYI... 

WKH