Literature DB >> 25800686

A randomised controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation against conventional artificial ventilation for adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome. The OSCAR (OSCillation in ARDS) study.

Ranjit Lall1, Patrick Hamilton2, Duncan Young3, Claire Hulme2, Peter Hall2, Sanjoy Shah4, Iain MacKenzie5, William Tunnicliffe5, Kathy Rowan6, Brian Cuthbertson7, Chris McCabe2, Sallie Lamb1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) require artificial ventilation but this treatment may produce secondary lung damage. High-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) may reduce this damage.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of HFOV in patients with ARDS compared with standard mechanical ventilation.
DESIGN: A parallel, randomised, unblinded clinical trial.
SETTING: UK intensive care units. PARTICIPANTS: Mechanically ventilated patients with a partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood/fractional concentration of inspired oxygen (P : F) ratio of 26.7 kPa (200 mmHg) or less and an expected duration of ventilation of at least 2 days at recruitment.
INTERVENTIONS: Treatment arm HFOV using a Novalung R100(®) ventilator (Metran Co. Ltd, Saitama, Japan) ventilator until the start of weaning. Control arm Conventional mechanical ventilation using the devices available in the participating centres. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary clinical outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days after randomisation. The primary health economic outcome was the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.
RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-six of 398 patients (41.7%) randomised to the HFOV group and 163 of 397 patients (41.1%) randomised to the conventional mechanical ventilation group died within 30 days of randomisation (p = 0.85), for an absolute difference of 0.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) -6.1% to 7.5%]. After adjustment for study centre, sex, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, and the initial P : F ratio, the odds ratio for survival in the conventional ventilation group was 1.03 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.40; p = 0.87 logistic regression). Survival analysis showed no difference in the probability of survival up to 12 months after randomisation. The average QALY at 1 year in the HFOV group was 0.302 compared to 0.246. This gives an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the cost to society per QALY of £88,790 and an ICER for the cost to the NHS per QALY of £ 78,260.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of HFOV had no effect on 30-day mortality in adult patients undergoing mechanical ventilation for ARDS and no economic advantage. We suggest that further research into avoiding ventilator-induced lung injury should concentrate on ventilatory strategies other than HFOV. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10416500.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25800686      PMCID: PMC4781590          DOI: 10.3310/hta19230

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Technol Assess        ISSN: 1366-5278            Impact factor:   4.014


  12 in total

1.  High-frequency oscillatory ventilation on shaky ground.

Authors:  Atul Malhotra; Jeffrey M Drazen
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2013-01-22       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Extracorporeal lung support in patients with spinal cord injury: Single center experience.

Authors:  Sebastian Lotzien; Thomas A Schildhauer; Mirko Aach; Justus Strauch; Justyna Swol
Journal:  J Spinal Cord Med       Date:  2016-03-09       Impact factor: 1.985

Review 3.  Methodological Issues Surrounding the Use of Baseline Health-Related Quality of Life Data to Inform Trial-Based Economic Evaluations of Interventions Within Emergency and Critical Care Settings: A Systematic Literature Review.

Authors:  Melina Dritsaki; Felix Achana; James Mason; Stavros Petrou
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  High-frequency oscillatory ventilation is an effective treatment for severe pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome with refractory hypoxemia.

Authors:  Yu-Xiong Guo; Zhao-Ni Wang; Ya-Ting Li; Li Pan; Li-Fen Yang; Yan Hu; Yue-Yu Sun; Liang-Ming Cai; Zhuang-Gui Chen
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2016-10-19       Impact factor: 2.423

5.  Missing data in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: An incomplete journey.

Authors:  Baptiste Leurent; Manuel Gomes; James R Carpenter
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2018-03-24       Impact factor: 3.046

Review 6.  Handling Missing Data in Within-Trial Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Review with Future Recommendations.

Authors:  Andrea Gabrio; Alexina J Mason; Gianluca Baio
Journal:  Pharmacoecon Open       Date:  2017-06

Review 7.  Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Intractable Pulmonary Insufficiency: Practical Issues and Future Directions.

Authors:  T S R Delnoij; R Driessen; A S Sharma; E A Bouman; U Strauch; P M Roekaerts
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2016-04-05       Impact factor: 3.411

8.  One-year resource utilisation, costs and quality of life in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS): secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Joachim Marti; Peter Hall; Patrick Hamilton; Sarah Lamb; Chris McCabe; Ranjit Lall; Julie Darbyshire; Duncan Young; Claire Hulme
Journal:  J Intensive Care       Date:  2016-08-11

9.  Psychometric properties of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in patients diagnosed with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS).

Authors:  Hiral Anil Shah; Melina Dritsaki; Joshua Pink; Stavros Petrou
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2016-01-27       Impact factor: 3.186

10.  Simvastatin for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness from a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  A Agus; C Hulme; R M Verghis; C McDowell; C Jackson; C M O'Kane; J G Laffey; D F McAuley
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2017-05-17       Impact factor: 9.097

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.