P K Plant1, J L Owen, S Parrott, M W Elliott. 1. Department of Respiratory Medicine, St James's University Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF. paul.plant@leedsth.nhs.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of standard treatment with and without the addition of ward based non-invasive ventilation in patients admitted to hospital with an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. DESIGN: Incremental cost effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled trial. SETTING:Medical wards in 14 hospitals in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: The trial comprised 236 patients admitted to hospital with an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and mild to moderate acidosis (pH 7.25-7.35) secondary to respiratory failure. The economic analysis compared the costs of treatment that these patients received after randomisation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Incremental cost per in-hospital death. RESULTS: 24/118 died in the group receiving standard treatment and 12/118 in the group receiving non-invasive ventilation (P=0.05). Allocation to the group receiving non-invasive ventilation was associated with a reduction in costs of 49362 pounds sterling (78741 dollars; 73109 euros), mainly through reduced use of intensive care units. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio was -645 pounds sterling per death avoided (95% confidence interval -2310 pounds sterling to 386 pounds sterling), indicating a dominant (more effective and less costly) strategy. Modelling of these data indicates that a typical UK hospital providing a non-invasive ventilation service will avoid six deaths and three to nine admissions to intensive care units per year, with an associated cost reduction of 12000-53000 pounds sterling per year. CONCLUSIONS: Non-invasive ventilation is a highly cost effective treatment that both reduced total costs and improved mortality in hospital.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of standard treatment with and without the addition of ward based non-invasive ventilation in patients admitted to hospital with an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. DESIGN: Incremental cost effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Medical wards in 14 hospitals in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: The trial comprised 236 patients admitted to hospital with an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and mild to moderate acidosis (pH 7.25-7.35) secondary to respiratory failure. The economic analysis compared the costs of treatment that these patients received after randomisation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Incremental cost per in-hospital death. RESULTS: 24/118 died in the group receiving standard treatment and 12/118 in the group receiving non-invasive ventilation (P=0.05). Allocation to the group receiving non-invasive ventilation was associated with a reduction in costs of 49362 pounds sterling (78741 dollars; 73109 euros), mainly through reduced use of intensive care units. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio was -645 pounds sterling per death avoided (95% confidence interval -2310 pounds sterling to 386 pounds sterling), indicating a dominant (more effective and less costly) strategy. Modelling of these data indicates that a typical UK hospital providing a non-invasive ventilation service will avoid six deaths and three to nine admissions to intensive care units per year, with an associated cost reduction of 12000-53000 pounds sterling per year. CONCLUSIONS: Non-invasive ventilation is a highly cost effective treatment that both reduced total costs and improved mortality in hospital.
Authors: L Brochard; J Mancebo; M Wysocki; F Lofaso; G Conti; A Rauss; G Simonneau; S Benito; A Gasparetto; F Lemaire Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1995-09-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: T J Martin; J D Hovis; J P Costantino; M I Bierman; M P Donahoe; R M Rogers; J W Kreit; F C Sciurba; R A Stiller; M H Sanders Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: J Bott; M P Carroll; J H Conway; S E Keilty; E M Ward; A M Brown; E A Paul; M W Elliott; R C Godfrey; J A Wedzicha; J Moxham Journal: Lancet Date: 1993-06-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Holger J Schünemann; Roger Goldstein; M Jeffery Mador; Douglas McKim; Elisabeth Stahl; Lauren E Griffith; Ahmed M Bayoumi; Peggy Austin; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Christian Michael Horvath; Martin Hugo Brutsche; Otto Dagobert Schoch; Bernarde Schillig; Florent Baty; Dieter vonOw; Jochen Julius Rüdiger Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2016-10-08 Impact factor: 3.397
Authors: R Gosselink; J Bott; M Johnson; E Dean; S Nava; M Norrenberg; B Schönhofer; K Stiller; H van de Leur; J L Vincent Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2008-02-19 Impact factor: 17.440