Benjamin Y Gravesteijn1, Marc Schluep2, Daphne C Voormolen3, Anna C van der Burgh4, Dinís Dos Reis Miranda5, Sanne E Hoeks2, Henrik Endeman5. 1. Department of Anaesthesiology, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: b.gravesteijn@erasmusmc.nl. 2. Department of Anaesthesiology, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) for in-hospital cardiac arrest treatment. METHODS: A decision tree and Markov model were constructed based on current literature. The model was conditional on age, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and sex. Three treatment strategies were considered: ECPR for patients with an Age-Combined Charlson Comorbidity Index (ACCI) below different thresholds (2-4), ECPR for everyone (EALL), and ECPR for no one (NE). Cost-effectiveness was assessed with costs per quality-of-life adjusted life years (QALY). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Treating eligible patients with an ACCI below 2 points costs 8394 (95% CI: 4922-14,911) euro per extra QALY per IHCA patient; treating eligible patients with an ACCI below 3 costs 8825 (95% CI: 5192-15,777) euro per extra QALY per IHCA patient; treating eligible patients with an ACCI below 4 costs 9311 (95% CI: 5478-16,690) euro per extra QALY per IHCA patient; treating every eligible patient with ECPR costs 10,818 (95% CI: 6357-19,400) euro per extra QALY per IHCA patient. For WTP thresholds of 0-9500 euro, NE has the highest probability of being the most cost-effective strategy. For WTP thresholds between 9500 and 12,500, treating eligible patients with an ACCI below 4 has the highest probability of being the most cost-effective strategy. For WTP thresholds of 12,500 or higher, EALL was found to have the highest probability of being the most cost-effective strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Given that conventional WTP thresholds in Europe and North-America lie between 50,000-100,000 euro or U.S. dollars, ECPR can be considered a cost-effective treatment after in-hospital cardiac arrest from a healthcare perspective. More research is necessary to validate the effectiveness of ECPR, with a focus on the long-term effects of complications of ECPR.
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) for in-hospital cardiac arrest treatment. METHODS: A decision tree and Markov model were constructed based on current literature. The model was conditional on age, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and sex. Three treatment strategies were considered: ECPR for patients with an Age-Combined Charlson Comorbidity Index (ACCI) below different thresholds (2-4), ECPR for everyone (EALL), and ECPR for no one (NE). Cost-effectiveness was assessed with costs per quality-of-life adjusted life years (QALY). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Treating eligible patients with an ACCI below 2 points costs 8394 (95% CI: 4922-14,911) euro per extra QALY per IHCA patient; treating eligible patients with an ACCI below 3 costs 8825 (95% CI: 5192-15,777) euro per extra QALY per IHCA patient; treating eligible patients with an ACCI below 4 costs 9311 (95% CI: 5478-16,690) euro per extra QALY per IHCA patient; treating every eligible patient with ECPR costs 10,818 (95% CI: 6357-19,400) euro per extra QALY per IHCA patient. For WTP thresholds of 0-9500 euro, NE has the highest probability of being the most cost-effective strategy. For WTP thresholds between 9500 and 12,500, treating eligible patients with an ACCI below 4 has the highest probability of being the most cost-effective strategy. For WTP thresholds of 12,500 or higher, EALL was found to have the highest probability of being the most cost-effective strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Given that conventional WTP thresholds in Europe and North-America lie between 50,000-100,000 euro or U.S. dollars, ECPR can be considered a cost-effective treatment after in-hospital cardiac arrest from a healthcare perspective. More research is necessary to validate the effectiveness of ECPR, with a focus on the long-term effects of complications of ECPR.
Authors: Spyros D Mentzelopoulos; Keith Couper; Patrick Van de Voorde; Patrick Druwé; Marieke Blom; Gavin D Perkins; Ileana Lulic; Jana Djakow; Violetta Raffay; Gisela Lilja; Leo Bossaert Journal: Notf Rett Med Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 0.826
Authors: Benjamin Yaël Gravesteijn; Marc Schluep; Maksud Disli; Prakriti Garkhail; Dinis Dos Reis Miranda; Robert-Jan Stolker; Henrik Endeman; Sanne Elisabeth Hoeks Journal: Crit Care Date: 2020-08-17 Impact factor: 9.097
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