Murillo Santucci Cesar Assuncao1, Vanessa Teich2, Sandra Christina Pereira Lima Shiramizo3, Denizart Vianna Araújo4, Renato Melli Carrera5, Ary Serpa Neto6, Eliezer Silva7. 1. Department of Critically Ill Patient, Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Av Albert Einstein, 627/701, Sao Paulo (SP), Brazil 05652-000. Electronic address: santucci@einstein.br. 2. MedInsight, Decisions in Health Care, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Electronic address: vanessateich@medinsight.com. 3. Department of Critically Ill Patient, Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Av Albert Einstein, 627/701, Sao Paulo (SP), Brazil 05652-000. Electronic address: sandralima@einstein.br. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Medical Sciences School, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Electronic address: denizarvianna@gmail.com. 5. Department of Critically Ill Patient, Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Av Albert Einstein, 627/701, Sao Paulo (SP), Brazil 05652-000. 6. Department of Critically Ill Patient, Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Av Albert Einstein, 627/701, Sao Paulo (SP), Brazil 05652-000. Electronic address: aryserpa@terra.com.br. 7. Department of Critically Ill Patient, Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Av Albert Einstein, 627/701, Sao Paulo (SP), Brazil 05652-000. Electronic address: eliezer@einstein.br.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Severe sepsis is a time-dependent disease, and implementation of early treatment has been associated with mortality rate reduction. However, the literature is controversial regarding cost-effectiveness analysis of this intervention. The aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a managed protocol for the treatment of severe sepsis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study involving a historical comparison (before and after the implementation of the protocol) of patients who had been hospitalized with severe sepsis and septic shock. The group of patients who were treated before the assistance routine was implemented was considered to be the control. The case-managed nurse involved with assistance protocol performed the data collection. This nurse received special training to ensure the quality of the data and to measure the intervention throughout the implementation process. RESULTS: A total of 414 patients were analyzed. The mortality rates were 57% in the control group and 38% in the protocol group (P=.002). After the implementation of the protocol, the absolute risk reduction was 18%; and the relative risk reduction was 31.8%. There was a tendency for a reduction in the cost of the full hospitalization, but this trend did not reach statistical significance. Nevertheless, the cost of hospitalization in the intensive care unit was reduced significantly from US $138,237±$202,418 in the control group to US $85,484±$127,471 in the protocol group (P=.003). The managed protocol for sepsis resulted in an average gain of 3.2 life-years after being discharged from the hospital (8.8±13.3 years in the control group and 12.0±14.0 years in the protocol group, P=.01). CONCLUSIONS: Given that the incremental cost was lower than or equal to zero, the effectiveness of the protocol was justified by the significant increase in the life-years saved and the reduced mortality.
PURPOSE: Severe sepsis is a time-dependent disease, and implementation of early treatment has been associated with mortality rate reduction. However, the literature is controversial regarding cost-effectiveness analysis of this intervention. The aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a managed protocol for the treatment of severe sepsis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study involving a historical comparison (before and after the implementation of the protocol) of patients who had been hospitalized with severe sepsis and septic shock. The group of patients who were treated before the assistance routine was implemented was considered to be the control. The case-managed nurse involved with assistance protocol performed the data collection. This nurse received special training to ensure the quality of the data and to measure the intervention throughout the implementation process. RESULTS: A total of 414 patients were analyzed. The mortality rates were 57% in the control group and 38% in the protocol group (P=.002). After the implementation of the protocol, the absolute risk reduction was 18%; and the relative risk reduction was 31.8%. There was a tendency for a reduction in the cost of the full hospitalization, but this trend did not reach statistical significance. Nevertheless, the cost of hospitalization in the intensive care unit was reduced significantly from US $138,237±$202,418 in the control group to US $85,484±$127,471 in the protocol group (P=.003). The managed protocol for sepsis resulted in an average gain of 3.2 life-years after being discharged from the hospital (8.8±13.3 years in the control group and 12.0±14.0 years in the protocol group, P=.01). CONCLUSIONS: Given that the incremental cost was lower than or equal to zero, the effectiveness of the protocol was justified by the significant increase in the life-years saved and the reduced mortality.
Authors: Marcus J Schultz; Martin W Dunser; Arjen M Dondorp; Neill K J Adhikari; Shivakumar Iyer; Arthur Kwizera; Yoel Lubell; Alfred Papali; Luigi Pisani; Beth D Riviello; Derek C Angus; Luciano C Azevedo; Tim Baker; Janet V Diaz; Emir Festic; Rashan Haniffa; Randeep Jawa; Shevin T Jacob; Niranjan Kissoon; Rakesh Lodha; Ignacio Martin-Loeches; Ganbold Lundeg; David Misango; Mervyn Mer; Sanjib Mohanty; Srinivas Murthy; Ndidiamaka Musa; Jane Nakibuuka; Ary Serpa Neto; Mai Nguyen Thi Hoang; Binh Nguyen Thien; Rajyabardhan Pattnaik; Jason Phua; Jacobus Preller; Pedro Povoa; Suchitra Ranjit; Daniel Talmor; Jonarthan Thevanayagam; C Louise Thwaites Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-03-27 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Zhongheng Zhang; Yucai Hong; Nathan J Smischney; Han-Pin Kuo; Panagiotis Tsirigotis; Jordi Rello; Win Sen Kuan; Christian Jung; Chiara Robba; Fabio Silvio Taccone; Marc Leone; Herbert Spapen; David Grimaldi; Sven Van Poucke; Steven Q Simpson; Patrick M Honore; Stefan Hofer; Pietro Caironi Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Donald S Bourne; Billie S Davis; Kristin H Gigli; Chung-Chou H Chang; Jonathan G Yabes; Grant R Martsolf; Jeremy M Kahn Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 9.296
Authors: H Bryant Nguyen; Anja Kathrin Jaehne; Namita Jayaprakash; Matthew W Semler; Sara Hegab; Angel Coz Yataco; Geneva Tatem; Dhafer Salem; Steven Moore; Kamran Boka; Jasreen Kaur Gill; Jayna Gardner-Gray; Jacqueline Pflaum; Juan Pablo Domecq; Gina Hurst; Justin B Belsky; Raymond Fowkes; Ronald B Elkin; Steven Q Simpson; Jay L Falk; Daniel J Singer; Emanuel P Rivers Journal: Crit Care Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Kalin Werner; Nicholas Risko; Taylor Burkholder; Kenneth Munge; Lee Wallis; Teri Reynolds Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2020-02-25 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Karin Thursky; Senthil Lingaratnam; Jasveer Jayarajan; Gabrielle M Haeusler; Benjamin Teh; Michelle Tew; Georgina Venn; Alison Hiong; Christine Brown; Vivian Leung; Leon J Worth; Kim Dalziel; Monica A Slavin Journal: BMJ Open Qual Date: 2018-07-06