A preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis of lung protective ventilation with extra corporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO(2)R) in the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)

体外二氧化碳清除(ECCO(2)R)肺保护性通气治疗急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)的初步成本效益分析

阅读:1

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation (MV) is the cornerstone in the management of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Recent research suggests that decreasing the intensity of MV using lung protective ventilation (LPV) with lower tidal volume (Vt) and driving pressure (∆P) could improve survival. Extra-corporal CO(2) removal (ECCO(2)R) precisely enables LPV by allowing lower Vt, ∆P and mechanical power while maintaining PaCO(2) within a physiologic range. This study evaluates the potential cost-effectiveness of ECCO(2)R-enabled LPV in France. METHODS: We modelled the distribution over time of ventilated ARDS patients across 3 health-states (alive & ventilated, alive & weaned from ventilation, dead). We compared the outcomes of 3 strategies: MV (no ECCO(2)R), LPV (ECCO(2)R when PaCO(2) > 55 mmHg) and Ultra-LPV (ECCO(2)R for all). Patients characteristics, ventilation settings, survival and lengths of stay were derived from a large ARDS epidemiology study. Survival benefits associated with lower ∆P were taken from the analysis of more than 3000 patients enrolled in 9 randomized trials. Health outcomes were expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were computed with both Day 60 cost and Lifetime cost. RESULTS: Both LPV and ULPV as enabled by ECCO2R provided favorable results at Day 60 as compared to MV. Survival rates were increased with the protective strategies, notably with ULPV that provided even more manifest benefits as compared to MV. LPV and ULPV produced +0.162 and + 0.627 incremental QALYs as compared to MV, respectively. LPV and ULPV costs were augmented because of their survival benefits. Nonetheless, ICERs of LPV and ULPV vs. MV were all well below the €50,000 threshold. ULPV also presented with favorable ICERs as compared to LPV (i.e. less than €25,000/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: ECCO(2)R-enabled LPV strategies might provide cost-effective survival benefit. Additional data from interventional and observational studies are needed to support this preliminary model-based analysis.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。