Cost-effectiveness of the TherMax blood warmer during continuous renal replacement therapy.

Hypothermia is a common adverse event during continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), affecting multiple organ systems and increasing risk of poor health outcomes among patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) undergoing CRRT. TheraMax blood warmers are the next generation of extracorporeal blood warmers which reduce risk of hypothermia during CRRT. The purpose of this study is to elucidate the potential health economic impacts of avoiding CRRT-induced hypothermia by using the novel TherMax blood warming device. This study compares health care costs associated with use of the new TherMax blood warmer unit integrated with the PrisMax system compared to CRRT with a standalone blood warming device to avoid hypothermia in continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). An economic model was developed in which relevant health states for each intervention were normothermia, hypothermia, discharge, and death. Clinical inputs and costs were obtained from a combination of retrospective chart review and publicly available summary estimates. The proportion of AKI patients treated with CRRT who became hypothermic (<36°C) during CRRT treatment was 34.5% in the TherMax group compared to 71.9% in the 'standalone warmer' group. Given the 78.7-year average life expectancy in the US and the assumed average patient age at discharge/death of 65.4 years, the total life-years gained by avoiding mortality related to hypothermia was 9.0 in the TherMax group compared to 8.0 in the 'standalone warmer' group. Cost per life-year gained was $8,615 in the TherMax group versus $10,115 in the 'standalone warmer' group for a difference of -$1,501 favoring TherMax. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was negative, indicating superior cost-effectiveness for TherMax versus 'standalone warmer'. The TherMax blood warming device used with the PrisMax system is associated with lower risk of hypothermia, which our model indicates leads to lower costs, lower risk of mortality due to hypothermia, and superior cost-effectiveness.

Introduction

The burden of acute kidney injury (AKI) during critical illness is substantial. AKI is associated with short- and long-term complications in addition to increased use of health care resources [1-6]. In the multinational AKI-EPI study over half of all patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) had AKI and 23.5% required renal replacement therapy, translating to 13.5% of all ICU patients [2].

Hypothermia is a common adverse event during continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), historically reported in 44% of all cases [7]. Hypothermia affects multiple organ systems. It increases risks of bradycardia and arrhythmia, is associated with coagulopathy and ensuing transfusion requirements, and can impair pharmacodynamics [8]. In a large meta-analysis of 10,834 patients from 42 studies, sepsis mortality was significantly higher in patients with hypothermia than those with normothermia and fever [9]. A study from 2020 by Shimazui and co-workers showed hypothermia to be coupled with increased mortality in non-elderly septic patients [10]. Interestingly, in responding to questions regarding whether CRRT was a confounder in this study [11], the authors performed additional analyses and concluded that hypothermia was still associated with mortality, including in patients treated with CRRT. Hypothermia has been associated with significantly longer ICU length of stay in trauma patients treated in the ICU [12]. A study describing the effect of cooling on critically ill febrile patients indicated that hypothermia induced by CRRT results in immune system dysfunction [13] and suggested that assessment of long-term outcomes in this population is needed.

In a recent study, Bell and co-workers found that hypothermia was less prevalent in patients treated with the latest generation CRRT platform, the PrisMax system and the integrated TherMax blood warmer, compared to a previous CRRT platform with a standalone blood warmer [14]. The warmer has its control software integrated into the PrisMax system that has operator-selectable temperature settings. The TherMax device directly warms the blood by heating plates, adjusting warming based on estimated return blood temperature to achieve prescribed temperature targets. A bi-directional connection with the PrisMax system allows the warmer to respond to changing treatment parameters. In contrast, the current standard of care typically involves various temperature control methods including clinician-prescribed warming of the blood or fluids using standalone blood/fluid warmers that work independently from the treatment parameters of the CRRT device.

Cost-effectiveness analyses for health technologies are becoming increasingly important with increasing and often more costly treatment options over time. They provide information on where cost-burdens can be reduced to transfer resources to and increase the understanding of health care efficacy. The present investigation aims to elucidate the potential health economic impacts of avoiding CRRT-induced hypothermia. Specifically, the objectives are to: (1) estimate and compare the risk of hypothermia during the use of the TherMax blood warmer on the latest generation CRRT platform versus a previous generation CRRT blood warmer and (2) estimate and compare costs and cost-effectiveness of the TherMax warmer versus a previous generation blood warmer.

Materials and methods

Patient population

The Adult Intensive Care Department at Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden is a tertiary mixed surgical and medical unit with about 1000 admissions per year and nine beds. All provider specialties are present 24/7. Prior to November 2018, patients requiring dialysis for AKI were treated with CRRT via the PrismaFlex device with Barkey warmer (Baxter Healthcare). After November 2018, PrismaFlex devices were phased out and replaced with PrisMax system with integrated TherMax blood warmer unit (Baxter Healthcare). Patients were included in the study if they were: (1) admitted to the Skåne University Hospital’s Adult ICU between December 2006 and September 2020; (2) treated with CRRT for AKI for at least 1 hour; and (3) had normal body temperature (36.5°C-37.5°C) at the start of CRRT. Patients were excluded if they had undergone induced/therapeutic hypothermia, were treated with more than one CRRT device in a single ICU stay, or if the CRRT device used was not ascertainable.

Patient body temperature and CRRT device settings were stored in the Intellispace Critical Care and Anesthesia (ICCA) system. The temperature value set by the warmer and the patient body temperature were recorded hourly and stored automatically in the ICCA system, along with any relevant notes regarding patient status and therapy. Temperatures were recorded from an esophageal probe, the indwelling catheter in the urinary bladder in a majority of cases, and further from the thermistor of the pulse contour cardiac output monitoring system (Pulsion Medical Systems, Munich, Germany), or a pulmonary artery catheter (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA). For a very few minority of stable patients, tympanic temperature recordings were taken manually at the bedside. These methods are all accurate within 0.1 Celcius. This study was approved by the Regional Ethical Board of Southern Sweden (Dnr 2020–04642). Informed consent was not required since data did not contain uniquely identifying information and were analyzed anonymously.

Health outcomes and costs

Hypothermia risk was calculated by warmer group from patient-level data as the proportion of patients who were hypothermic during CRRT treatment. Hypothermia was defined as body temperature (measured as described previously) < 36°C for at one or more hourly readings during CRRT treatment within a single ICU stay.

Mortality risk among normothermic AKI patients treated with CRRT in the ICU was ascertained from a literature-based estimate of mortality among AKI patients treated with CRRT in the ICU [15]. Mortality risk among hypothermic patients was ascertained by multiplying the estimate obtained above by a literature-based estimate of SAPS-2 adjusted relative risk of ICU mortality in hypothermic patients versus normothermic patients [16]. The latter study did not exclusively include AKI patients treated with CRRT, but was limited to patients who had normal body temperature (36.5°C-37.5°C) at admission, excluding patients who reached a state of hyperthermia (>37.5°C) and patients who had undergone intentionally induced/therapeutic hypothermia. Average life-years gained per patient was calculated as the difference in average life years remaining weighted by sex and by proportion of patients on long-term dialysis [17] and the average patient age at discharge/death (Table 1) [18,19].

Table 1

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics.

Characteristic	TherMax Warmer	Standalone Warmer	p-value
Number of treatments	29	526
Age (years)a	65.39 ± 12.53	65.45 ± 14.66	0.399
Sex (female)	42.5%	40.9%	0.393
SAPS3a	74.09 ± 13.63	75.72 ± 14.85	0.325
KDIGO	3	3	1.000
Blood flow rate (ml/min)a	184.45 ± 50.40	136.64 ± 33.89	<0.001
Effluent flow rate (ml/min)a	42.18 ± 26.72	63.44 ± 83.99	0.003
Hemoglobin (g/L)a	108.48 ± 22.17	110.62 ± 19.76	0.348

Mean ± SD.

The duration of CRRT was assumed to be 7 days for both warmer types since the warmer is unlikely to impact the duration of dialysis [20]. Average ICU length of stay (LOS) among normothermic ICU patients was ascertained from a literature-based estimate among patients with AKI treated with CRRT in an international cohort of 1006 CRRT patients [20]. Average ICU LOS among hypothermic patients was ascertained by adding a literature-based estimate of mean difference in ICU LOS between hypothermic and normothermic trauma patients requiring ICU admission [12].

The average cost per patient per day of CRRT activity and the average cost per ICU day were ascertained from a previously published cost-effectiveness analysis of CRRT versus IHD in the US [15]. The average cost per ICU day was ascertained from a previously published study of ICU costs in the US [21]. The model also includes device costs for PrisMax with integrated TherMax warmer as well as PrismaFlex with standalone Barkey warmer as a comparison. Device costs were translated from published US list prices [22] to per-patient device cost assuming an average of 42 patients per year based on seven CRRT days per patient over a 6-year lifespan with 80% use/efficiency.

Health states and model form

All comparisons were made between the latest generation PrisMax device with the integrated TherMax warmer (Nov 2018 to Dec 2020) versus previous generation warmers, represented by PrismaFlex with a standalone Barkey warmer (Jan 2006 to Nov 2018). For each CRRT warmer type, the relevant health states were normothermia, hypothermia, discharge, and death. Clinical inputs and costs are listed in Tables 2 and S1. It was assumed there is no additional cost associated with hypothermia other than the costs related to increased length of stay in the ICU.

Table 2

Primary model inputs.

Parameter	TherMax Warmer	Standalone Warmer
Patient Age (yr)	65.4	65.4
Life years remaining (US population age 65)	17.5	17.5
Life years remaining (ESRD on dialysis age 65)	7.8	7.8
Chronic Dialysis (%)	21.8	21.8
Hypothermia (%)	34.5	71.9
Mortality (%)
Among normothermic	40.0	40.0
Among hypothermic	59.2	59.2
ICU Length of Stay (days)
Among normothermic	12.0	12.0
Among hypothermic	13.7	13.7
Duration of CRRT (days)	7.0	7.0
Costs
Device Cost (US list price)	$50,000a	$38,000b
Cost per inpatient day	$5,611	$5,611
Cost of CRRT per day	$1,047	$1,047

US list price for PrisMax [22].

US list price for PrismaFlex [22].

Due to uncertainty around the inputs, a deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the impact of each estimate on the results. The sensitivity analysis assessed the impact of setting ICU LOS equal between hypothermic and normothermic patients, as well as ±1 day for each group. All other inputs were allowed to vary by ±20%. Results were displayed graphically in a tornado plot.

Results

After November 2018, there were 29 ICU admissions of patients treated with CRRT using the PrisMax system with the TherMax blood warmer for a median of 68 hours (9.7 days) per admission. Prior to November 2018, 526 patients were treated with CRRT using the Prismaflex system with the previous generation of standalone blood warmer for a median of 62 hours (8.9 days) per admission. Characteristics for the TherMax warmer group and the standalone warmer group are presented in Table 1.

The proportion of AKI patients treated with CRRT who became hypothermic at any point during CRRT treatment was 34.5% in the TherMax group compared to 71.9% in the ‘standalone warmer’ group. Given the 78.7-year average life expectancy in the US and the assumed average patient age at discharge/death of 65.4 years, the total life-years gained by avoiding mortality related to hypothermia was 9.0 in the TherMax group compared to 8.0 in the ‘standalone warmer’ group (Table 3).

Table 3

Cost-effectiveness results.

Summary Statistic	TherMax Warmer	Standalone Warmers	Difference
Total Costs	$77,590	$81,152	-$3,562
Cost of ICU Stay	$70,664	$74,274	-$3,610
Cost of CRRT	$6,727	$6,727	$0
Device Costa	$200	$152	$48
Life Years Gained	9.0	8.0	1
Total Costs per LYG	$8,615	$10,115	-$1,501
ICER b	-$3,619	-	-

Device cost calculated as: (device list price)/(365 days per year)/(7 days per patient) * (80% use efficiency).

Calculated as the difference in cost divided by the difference in LYG; Negative ICER indicates superior cost-effectiveness.

The total cost of ICU stay was $70,664 in the TherMax group versus $74,274 in the ‘standalone warmer’ group for a difference of $3,562 favoring TherMax, while cost of CRRT activity was assumed to be equal at $7,344/admission Device cost per patient was $200 for TherMax powered by Prismax versus $152 for the ‘standalone warmer’, powered by PrismaFlex. Cost per life-year gained was $8,615 in the TherMax group versus $10,115 in the ‘standalone warmer’ group for a difference of -$1,501 favoring TherMax. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was -$3,619, indicating superior cost-effectiveness for TherMax versus the ‘standalone warmers’ (Table 3).

The inputs with the largest impact on cost difference between TherMax and the standalone warmers were ICU LOS for patients with hypothermia followed by ICU LOS for patients with normothermia. Increasing the ICU LOS for hypothermia or decreasing for normothermia resulted in a higher cost due to a larger difference in ICU LOS between patients with and without hypothermia. Setting the ICU LOS equal between patients with and without hypothermia (either 12 days or 13.7 days) resulted in no cost difference overall (Fig 1). Differential risk of CRRT-induced hypothermia between the TherMax warmer and the standalone warmers also played a role in the model as did cost of an ICU day, but even after allowing for 20% variability on each input, the TherMax warmer was still a cost-saving technology overall.

Fig 1

Deterministic sensitivity analysis.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first economic analysis of the impact of a CRRT blood warmer. Our analysis shows that use of the new TherMax blood warmer unit integrated with the PrisMax system reduced costs of treatment in the ICU by more than $3500 compared to CRRT with a standalone warmer. The cost per life-year gained was reduced by nearly $2000. Accordingly, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio indicates superior cost-effectiveness for the TherMax device.

Several previous studies have analyzed the economic impact of CRRT and intermittent renal replacement therapy (IRRT). Klarenbach and co-workers [23] and De Smedt et al. [24] concluded that CRRT did not provide either health or economic advantage over IRRT. In contrast to those two reports, a more recent investigation showed CRRT to have higher ICU costs but cumulatively lower total costs as compared to IRRT due to a lower occurrence of dialysis dependence among survivors [15]. That study used a Markov model with two health states for AKI survivors, dialysis dependence and dialysis independence. In a similar methodological setup from a 2019 study, with a model-based cost-utility analysis estimating long-term costs and health outcomes for a hypothetical cohort with a Markov model, CRRT dominated IRRT by cumulating more quality-adjusted life years and less costs [25].

While published literature is absent of specific studies on the economic impact of hypothermia, there are multiple reports of the association of low body temperature with detrimental outcomes. In 2020, Park et al. presented data on emergency department patients with sepsis; [26] in-hospital mortality rates in the hyperthermia, normothermia, and hypothermia groups were 8.5%, 20.6%, and 30.8%, respectively (p < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis, compared with hyperthermia, even normothermia was significantly associated with an increased in-hospital mortality. Data from Japan show that in patients with severe sepsis, the proportions of ICU-free and ventilator-free days were significantly smaller in patients with hypothermia. Further, hypothermia has been shown to be associated with a significantly higher disease severity, mortality risk, and lower implementation of sepsis bundles [27].

The relationship between body temperature and outcomes among critically ill patients is exceedingly well documented. Hypothermia may be related to high mortality in patients with sepsis [27-33]. However, it is unknown if inadvertent hypothermia, induced by the CRRT circuit carries similar risks to those described above. Specifically, we do not have data that fully elucidate the potential association between induced hypothermia and mortality risk. For instance, using studies of targeted hypothermia after cardiac arrest [34] is not feasible for obvious reasons. In the absence of focused studies on inadvertent hypothermia, we used data from Ethgen [15] and Erkens [16].

This study has both strengths and limitations. First, this is the first study attempting to calculate the economic impact of CRRT associated hypothermia. The underlying data, previously reported [14], consists of over 55,000 measured temperatures from over 300 individuals. It included information on both historical and current CRRT systems and their respective warming devices. Data granularity and validity is very high and have been described before [14,35], specifically with automatic data transfer without manual input by healthcare staff. Moreover, with regards to the economic assessments, we have consistently used conservative assumptions, and have added sensitivity analyses in order to adequately gauge the impact of our calculations.

The limitations of the study include: 1) the model relies on data regarding CRRT duration, ICU LOS, and health outcomes from studies that did not specifically evaluate inadvertent CRRT-induced hypothermia; 2) the dataset included a large set of measured temperatures, but the historic group was larger and spanned over 12 year while the current PrisMax/TherMax data was obtained over 10 months; 3) multiple forms of health care economic systems exist in the industrialized countries, making precise adaptations, or “translations”, to singular countries difficult; and 4) classification and inclusion of patients with short duration (<1 hour) of low-risk/short-duration patients into a binary (yes/no) CRRT exposure may introduce misclassification, but misclassification is expected to be non-differential with respect to warmer type or time period and unlikely to introduce bias into the results except possibly toward null association.

Conclusions

In conclusion, switching to the TherMax blood warmer with the PrisMax system for CRRT is associated with less risk of hypothermia. Given the risk of mortality associated with hypothermia, our model also indicates that the switch reduced the risk of mortality associated with hypothermia, which lead to more life-years and superior cost-effectiveness of the PrisMax with integrated TherMax blood warmer for CRRT compared to the previous generation of devices with standalone warmers.

Economic model inputs and sources.

This supporting table is an more detailed expansion of the model inputs list provided in Table 1 of the main text. This table additionally includes sources for each input along with a description of the source and statistic.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

2 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-12993

Cost-effectiveness of the TherMax Blood Warmer During Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Blackowicz,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 08 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see:  http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at  https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Andrea Ballotta

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

and

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. Thank you for providing the following Funding Statement:

'The study was funded by consultancy grants for authors Bell and Broman from Baxter Healthcare and from Skåne University Hospital. Authors Blackowicz, Echeverri, and Harenski are full time employees of Baxter Healthcare with ownership interest. All authors played a role in study design and manuscript preparation. Data was collected independently of the Baxter Healthcare.'

a. We note that one or more of the authors is affiliated with the funding organization, indicating the funder may have had some role in the design, data collection, analysis or preparation of your manuscript for publication; in other words, the funder played an indirect role through the participation of the co-authors.

If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form. Please make any necessary amendments directly within this section of the online submission form.  Please also update your Funding Statement to include the following statement: “The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If the funding organization did have an additional role, please state and explain that role within your Funding Statement.

b. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these.

Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

c. Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information

Additional Editor Comments:

Tx for your contribution. As stated by the reviewer the paper needs major revision

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors described a novel device to reduce risk of hypothermia during CRRT, the topic is interesting in the ICU setting, perhaps the manuscript needs major revision and the conclusions are not completely supported by data.

Major revision:

- Please move the definition of hypothermia in the methods.

- Please describe in the methods how data transfer has been made.

- Is there any chance to record the temperature every minute? Did the authors consider in the analysis a single value recorded or at least an hour of hypothermia?

- Page 4 lines 90-91: The authors mentioned as inclusion criteria CRRT for at least 1 hour, I think the duration of the treatment is too short to affect the outcome, please discuss about that.

-Please provide the mean duration of the CRRT in the 2 groups.

- Page 5, line 98: Recording temperature from different sites could be a limit of the study, please discuss about that.

- Table 1: Please write the exact p value instead of “not significant” or “p<0.05”.

- Table 1: Number of treatments in the 2 groups are not in accordance with the text, in the table are 310 vs 32, in the manuscript the authors mentioned 526 patients treated with CRRT, it’s difficult for me to understand.

- Table 1: The comparison between 310 and 32 treatments could be a statistical issue.

- In the introduction the authors described the potential complications of the hypothermia, such as arrhythmia, coagulopathy, but they did not mention kind and rate of complications in the study.

- Page 11: It’s difficult for me to understand this limit “the current data was obtained over 10 months”, the authors wrote in the methods that they included patients between 2006 and 2020, please clarify.

- In the conclusion: the statement “TherMax reduced the risk of mortality associated with hypothermia” is not supported by data, in table 2 I can see the same mortality for hypothermia in both groups 59.2% and I think it’s quite hard to assume that the mortality is due to hypothermia, please make a comment.

Minor revision:

- Please type “TherMax” in the same way in the manuscript (“Thermax” vs “TherMax”).

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Camilla L'Acqua

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

28 Sep 2021

Thank you for your insight. We have addressed all concerns and included them in an separately uploaded document, as requested by the editor.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

12 Jan 2022

Cost-effectiveness of the TherMax blood warmer during continuous renal replacement therapy

PONE-D-21-12993R1

Dear Dr. Blackowicz,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Andrea Ballotta

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you again for your contribution and i apologize for the delay. On the basis of the reviewer's comments i deem the paper suitable for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

21 Jan 2022

PONE-D-21-12993R1

Cost-effectiveness of the TherMax blood warmer during continuous renal replacement therapy

Dear Dr. Blackowicz:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Andrea Ballotta

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE