Edilberto Amorim1, Shirley S Mo1, Sebastian Palacios2, Mohammad M Ghassemi2, Wei-Hung Weng2, Sydney S Cash2, Matthew T Bianchi2, M Brandon Westover1. 1. From Harvard Medical School (E.A., S.S.M., S.S.C., M.T.B., M.B.W.); Department of Neurology (E.A., S.S.C., M.T.B., M.B.W.), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Department of Neurology (E.A.), University of California, San Francisco; and Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (E.A., S.P.) and Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (M.M.G., W.-H.W.), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. edilbertoamorim@gmail.com mwestover@mgh.harvard.edu. 2. From Harvard Medical School (E.A., S.S.M., S.S.C., M.T.B., M.B.W.); Department of Neurology (E.A., S.S.C., M.T.B., M.B.W.), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Department of Neurology (E.A.), University of California, San Francisco; and Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (E.A., S.P.) and Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (M.M.G., W.-H.W.), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine cost-effectiveness parameters for EEG monitoring in cardiac arrest prognostication. METHODS: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to estimate the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained by adding continuous EEG monitoring to standard cardiac arrest prognostication using the American Academy of Neurology Practice Parameter (AANPP) decision algorithm: neurologic examination, somatosensory evoked potentials, and neuron-specific enolase. We explored lifetime cost-effectiveness in a closed system that incorporates revenue back into the medical system (return) from payers who survive a cardiac arrest with good outcome and contribute to the health system during the remaining years of life. Good outcome was defined as a Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) score of 1-2 and poor outcome as CPC of 3-5. RESULTS: An improvement in specificity for poor outcome prediction of 4.2% would be sufficient to make continuous EEG monitoring cost-effective (baseline AANPP specificity = 83.9%). In sensitivity analysis, the effect of increased sensitivity on the cost-effectiveness of EEG depends on the utility (u) assigned to a poor outcome. For patients who regard surviving with a poor outcome (CPC 3-4) worse than death (u = -0.34), an increased sensitivity for poor outcome prediction of 13.8% would make AANPP + EEG monitoring cost-effective (baseline AANPP sensitivity = 76.3%). In the closed system, an improvement in sensitivity of 1.8% together with an improvement in specificity of 3% was sufficient to make AANPP + EEG monitoring cost-effective, assuming lifetime return of 50% (USD $70,687). CONCLUSION: Incorporating continuous EEG monitoring into cardiac arrest prognostication is cost-effective if relatively small improvements in sensitivity and specificity are achieved.
OBJECTIVE: To determine cost-effectiveness parameters for EEG monitoring in cardiac arrest prognostication. METHODS: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to estimate the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained by adding continuous EEG monitoring to standard cardiac arrest prognostication using the American Academy of Neurology Practice Parameter (AANPP) decision algorithm: neurologic examination, somatosensory evoked potentials, and neuron-specific enolase. We explored lifetime cost-effectiveness in a closed system that incorporates revenue back into the medical system (return) from payers who survive a cardiac arrest with good outcome and contribute to the health system during the remaining years of life. Good outcome was defined as a Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) score of 1-2 and poor outcome as CPC of 3-5. RESULTS: An improvement in specificity for poor outcome prediction of 4.2% would be sufficient to make continuous EEG monitoring cost-effective (baseline AANPP specificity = 83.9%). In sensitivity analysis, the effect of increased sensitivity on the cost-effectiveness of EEG depends on the utility (u) assigned to a poor outcome. For patients who regard surviving with a poor outcome (CPC 3-4) worse than death (u = -0.34), an increased sensitivity for poor outcome prediction of 13.8% would make AANPP + EEG monitoring cost-effective (baseline AANPP sensitivity = 76.3%). In the closed system, an improvement in sensitivity of 1.8% together with an improvement in specificity of 3% was sufficient to make AANPP + EEG monitoring cost-effective, assuming lifetime return of 50% (USD $70,687). CONCLUSION: Incorporating continuous EEG monitoring into cardiac arrest prognostication is cost-effective if relatively small improvements in sensitivity and specificity are achieved.
Authors: David Feeny; William Furlong; George W Torrance; Charles H Goldsmith; Zenglong Zhu; Sonja DePauw; Margaret Denton; Michael Boyle Journal: Med Care Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Amy Z Crepeau; Jennifer E Fugate; Jay Mandrekar; Roger D White; Eelco F Wijdicks; Alejandro A Rabinstein; Jeffrey W Britton Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2014-02-21 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Emelia J Benjamin; Salim S Virani; Clifton W Callaway; Alanna M Chamberlain; Alexander R Chang; Susan Cheng; Stephanie E Chiuve; Mary Cushman; Francesca N Delling; Rajat Deo; Sarah D de Ferranti; Jane F Ferguson; Myriam Fornage; Cathleen Gillespie; Carmen R Isasi; Monik C Jiménez; Lori Chaffin Jordan; Suzanne E Judd; Daniel Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda Lisabeth; Simin Liu; Chris T Longenecker; Pamela L Lutsey; Jason S Mackey; David B Matchar; Kunihiro Matsushita; Michael E Mussolino; Khurram Nasir; Martin O'Flaherty; Latha P Palaniappan; Ambarish Pandey; Dilip K Pandey; Mathew J Reeves; Matthew D Ritchey; Carlos J Rodriguez; Gregory A Roth; Wayne D Rosamond; Uchechukwu K A Sampson; Gary M Satou; Svati H Shah; Nicole L Spartano; David L Tirschwell; Connie W Tsao; Jenifer H Voeks; Joshua Z Willey; John T Wilkins; Jason Hy Wu; Heather M Alger; Sally S Wong; Paul Muntner Journal: Circulation Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Brendan G Carr; Jeremy M Kahn; Raina M Merchant; Andrew A Kramer; Robert W Neumar Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2008-10-25 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Saket Girotra; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; John A Spertus; Yan Li; Harlan M Krumholz; Paul S Chan Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-11-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jeannette Hofmeijer; Tim M J Beernink; Frank H Bosch; Albertus Beishuizen; Marleen C Tjepkema-Cloostermans; Michel J A M van Putten Journal: Neurology Date: 2015-06-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Erik Westhall; Andrea O Rossetti; Anne-Fleur van Rootselaar; Troels Wesenberg Kjaer; Janneke Horn; Susann Ullén; Hans Friberg; Niklas Nielsen; Ingmar Rosén; Anders Åneman; David Erlinge; Yvan Gasche; Christian Hassager; Jan Hovdenes; Jesper Kjaergaard; Michael Kuiper; Tommaso Pellis; Pascal Stammet; Michael Wanscher; Jørn Wetterslev; Matt P Wise; Tobias Cronberg Journal: Neurology Date: 2016-02-10 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Lotte Sondag; Barry J Ruijter; Marleen C Tjepkema-Cloostermans; Albertus Beishuizen; Frank H Bosch; Janine A van Til; Michel J A M van Putten; Jeannette Hofmeijer Journal: Crit Care Date: 2017-05-15 Impact factor: 9.097