Jonas Hjelmgren1, Sara Bruce Wirta2, Pernilla Huetson2, Karl-Johan Myrén3, Sylvia Göthberg4. 1. IMS Health HEOR, Sveavägen 155, Stockholm, Sweden Amgen (Europe) GmbH, Dammstrasse 23, Zug, Switzerland. 2. IMS Health HEOR, Sveavägen 155, Stockholm, Sweden. 3. IMS Health HEOR, Sveavägen 155, Stockholm, Sweden SOBI, Tomtebodavägen 23A, Solna, Sweden. 4. Maquet Critical Care AB, Röntgenvägen 2, Solna, Sweden sylvia.gothberg@maquet.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Asynchrony between patient and ventilator breaths is associated with increased duration of mechanical ventilation (MV). Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NAVA) controls MV through an esophageal reading of diaphragm electrical activity via a nasogastric tube mounted with electrode rings. NAVA has been shown to decrease asynchrony in comparison to pressure support ventilation (PSV). The objective of this study was to conduct a health economic evaluation of NAVA compared with PSV. METHODS: We developed a model based on an indirect link between improved synchrony with NAVA versus PSV and fewer days spent on MV in synchronous patients. Unit costs for MV were obtained from the Swedish intensive care unit register, and used in the model along with NAVA-specific costs. The importance of each parameter (proportion of asynchronous patients, costs, and average MV duration) for the overall results was evaluated through sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Base case results showed that 21% of patients ventilated with NAVA were asynchronous versus 52% of patients receiving PSV. This equals an absolute difference of 31% and an average of 1.7 days less on MV and a total cost saving of US$7886 (including NAVA catheter costs). A breakeven analysis suggested that NAVA was cost effective compared with PSV given an absolute difference in the proportion of asynchronous patients greater than 2.5% (49.5% versus 52% asynchronous patients with NAVA and PSV, respectively). The base case results were stable to changes in parameters, such as difference in asynchrony, duration of ventilation and daily intensive care unit costs. CONCLUSION: This study showed economically favorable results for NAVA versus PSV. Our results show that only a minor decrease in the proportion of asynchronous patients with NAVA is needed for investments to pay off and generate savings. Future studies need to confirm this result by directly relating improved synchrony to the number of days on MV.
OBJECTIVES: Asynchrony between patient and ventilator breaths is associated with increased duration of mechanical ventilation (MV). Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NAVA) controls MV through an esophageal reading of diaphragm electrical activity via a nasogastric tube mounted with electrode rings. NAVA has been shown to decrease asynchrony in comparison to pressure support ventilation (PSV). The objective of this study was to conduct a health economic evaluation of NAVA compared with PSV. METHODS: We developed a model based on an indirect link between improved synchrony with NAVA versus PSV and fewer days spent on MV in synchronous patients. Unit costs for MV were obtained from the Swedish intensive care unit register, and used in the model along with NAVA-specific costs. The importance of each parameter (proportion of asynchronous patients, costs, and average MV duration) for the overall results was evaluated through sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Base case results showed that 21% of patients ventilated with NAVA were asynchronous versus 52% of patients receiving PSV. This equals an absolute difference of 31% and an average of 1.7 days less on MV and a total cost saving of US$7886 (including NAVA catheter costs). A breakeven analysis suggested that NAVA was cost effective compared with PSV given an absolute difference in the proportion of asynchronous patients greater than 2.5% (49.5% versus 52% asynchronous patients with NAVA and PSV, respectively). The base case results were stable to changes in parameters, such as difference in asynchrony, duration of ventilation and daily intensive care unit costs. CONCLUSION: This study showed economically favorable results for NAVA versus PSV. Our results show that only a minor decrease in the proportion of asynchronous patients with NAVA is needed for investments to pay off and generate savings. Future studies need to confirm this result by directly relating improved synchrony to the number of days on MV.
Authors: Arnaud W Thille; Pablo Rodriguez; Belen Cabello; François Lellouche; Laurent Brochard Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2006-08-01 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Davide Colombo; Gianmaria Cammarota; Moreno Alemani; Luca Carenzo; Federico Lorenzo Barra; Rosanna Vaschetto; Arthur S Slutsky; Francesco Della Corte; Paolo Navalesi Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Nicolas Terzi; Iris Pelieu; Lydia Guittet; Michel Ramakers; Amélie Seguin; Cédric Daubin; Pierre Charbonneau; Damien du Cheyron; Frédéric Lofaso Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Jennifer Beck; Maureen Reilly; Giacomo Grasselli; Lucia Mirabella; Arthur S Slutsky; Michael S Dunn; Christer Sinderby Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 3.756