Endovascular training with animals versus virtual reality systems: an economic analysis.

PURPOSE To assess the relative costs of a virtual reality (VR) laboratory and an animal laboratory for endovascular skills training. MATERIALS AND METHODS Cost data extracted from a previous experiment was used to perform a financial analysis according to the guidelines published by the National Institutes of Health. The analysis compared the purchase or rental of a Procedicus Vascular Interventional System Trainer to the rental of an animal laboratory. RESULTS The VR laboratory course cost $3,434 per trainee versus $4,634 in the animal laboratory according to the purchase-versus-rental analysis. The cost ratio was 0.74 in favor of the VR laboratory. Cost ratio sensitivity analysis ranged from 0.25 in favor of the VR laboratory to 2.22 in favor of the animal laboratory. The first-year potential savings were $62,410 assuming exclusive use of the VR laboratory. The 5-year training savings totaled $390,376, excluding the $60,000 residual value of the simulator. Simulator rental reduced the course price to $1,076 per trainee and lowered the cost ratio to 0.23 in favor of the VR laboratory. Findings of sensitivity analysis ranged from 0.08 to 0.70 in favor of the VR laboratory. The first-year and 5-year potential national savings increased to $185,026 and $1,013,238, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Although evidence remains sparse that the training of interventional skills in artificial environments translates to better performance in human procedures, there are good pedagogic grounds on which to believe that such training will become increasingly important. The present comparison of the direct costs of two such models suggests that VR training is less expensive than live animal training.