Murtaza I Bharmal1, Joseph M Venturini2, Rhys F M Chua2, Willard W Sharp3, David G Beiser3, Corey E Tabit2, Taishi Hirai4, Jonathan R Rosenberg5, Janet Friant2, John E A Blair2, Jonathan D Paul2, Sandeep Nathan2, Atman P Shah2. 1. Department of Medicine, University of Chicago Medical Center, 5841 South Maryland Avenue, Chicago, IL, 60637, United States. Electronic address: murtaza.bharmal@uchospitals.edu. 2. Department of Medicine, University of Chicago Medical Center, 5841 South Maryland Avenue, Chicago, IL, 60637, United States. 3. Section of Emergency Medicine, University of Chicago Medical Center, 5841 South Maryland Avenue, MC 5068, Chicago, IL, 60637, United States. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Chicago Medical Center, 5841 South Maryland Avenue, Chicago, IL, 60637, United States; Department of Cardiology, St Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, 4401 Wornall Road, Kansas City, MO, 64111, United States. 5. Department of Medicine, University of Chicago Medical Center, 5841 South Maryland Avenue, Chicago, IL, 60637, United States; Department of Cardiology, NorthShore University Health System, 2650 Ridge Road, Evanston, IL, 60201, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is a resource-intensive tool that provides haemodynamic and respiratory support in patients who have suffered cardiac arrest. In this study, we investigated the cost-utility of ECPR (cost/QALY) in cardiac arrest patients treated at our institution. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients who received ECPR following cardiac arrest between 2012 and 2018. All medical care-associated charges with ECPR and subsequent hospital admission were recorded. The quality-of-life of survivors was assessed with the Health Utilities Index Mark II. The cost-utility of ECPR was calculated with cost and quality-of-life data. RESULTS: ECPR was used in 32 patients (15/32 in-hospital, 47%) with a median age of 55.0 years (IQR 46.3-63.3 years), 59% male and 66% African American. The median duration of ECPR support was 2.1 days (IQR 0.9-3.8 days). Survival to hospital discharge was 16%. The median score of the Health Utilities Index Mark II at discharge for the survivors was 0.44 (IQR 0.32-0.52). The median operating cost for patients undergoing ECMO was $125,683 per patient (IQR $49,751-$206,341 per patient). The calculated cost-utility for ECPR was $56,156/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: The calculated cost-utility is within the threshold considered cost-effective in the United States (<$150,000/QALY gained). These results are comparable to the cost-effectiveness of heart transplantation for end-stage heart failure. Larger studies are needed to assess the cost-utility of ECPR and to identify whether other factors, such as patient characteristics, affect the cost-utility benefit.
BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is a resource-intensive tool that provides haemodynamic and respiratory support in patients who have suffered cardiac arrest. In this study, we investigated the cost-utility of ECPR (cost/QALY) in cardiac arrestpatients treated at our institution. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients who received ECPR following cardiac arrest between 2012 and 2018. All medical care-associated charges with ECPR and subsequent hospital admission were recorded. The quality-of-life of survivors was assessed with the Health Utilities Index Mark II. The cost-utility of ECPR was calculated with cost and quality-of-life data. RESULTS: ECPR was used in 32 patients (15/32 in-hospital, 47%) with a median age of 55.0 years (IQR 46.3-63.3 years), 59% male and 66% African American. The median duration of ECPR support was 2.1 days (IQR 0.9-3.8 days). Survival to hospital discharge was 16%. The median score of the Health Utilities Index Mark II at discharge for the survivors was 0.44 (IQR 0.32-0.52). The median operating cost for patients undergoing ECMO was $125,683 per patient (IQR $49,751-$206,341 per patient). The calculated cost-utility for ECPR was $56,156/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: The calculated cost-utility is within the threshold considered cost-effective in the United States (<$150,000/QALY gained). These results are comparable to the cost-effectiveness of heart transplantation for end-stage heart failure. Larger studies are needed to assess the cost-utility of ECPR and to identify whether other factors, such as patient characteristics, affect the cost-utility benefit.
Authors: Joseph E Tonna; Craig H Selzman; Saket Girotra; Angela P Presson; Ravi R Thiagarajan; Lance B Becker; Chong Zhang; Peter Rycus; Heather T Keenan Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2022-01-12 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Jasmeet Soar; Bernd W Böttiger; Pierre Carli; Keith Couper; Charles D Deakin; Therese Djärv; Carsten Lott; Theresa Olasveengen; Peter Paal; Tommaso Pellis; Gavin D Perkins; Claudio Sandroni; Jerry P Nolan Journal: Notf Rett Med Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 0.826
Authors: Mark Dennis; Sean Lal; Paul Forrest; Alistair Nichol; Lionel Lamhaut; Richard J Totaro; Brian Burns; Claudio Sandroni Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-05-06 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Arthur S Slutsky; Alain Combes; Daniel Brodie; Darryl Abrams; Graeme MacLaren; Roberto Lorusso; Susanna Price; Demetris Yannopoulos; Leen Vercaemst; Jan Bělohlávek; Fabio S Taccone; Nadia Aissaoui; Kiran Shekar; A Reshad Garan; Nir Uriel; Joseph E Tonna; Jae Seung Jung; Koji Takeda; Yih-Sharng Chen Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2021-09-10 Impact factor: 17.440