Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of FreeO(2) technology versus manual oxygen-titration technology for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) hospitalised for acute exacerbations. SETTING: Tertiary acute care hospital in Quebec, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 47 patients with COPD hospitalised for acute exacerbations. INTERVENTION: An automated oxygen-titration and oxygen-weaning technology. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: The costs for hospitalisation and follow-up for 180 days were calculated using a microcosting approach and included the cost of FreeO(2) technology. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated using bootstrap resampling with 5000 replications. The main effect variable was the percentage of time spent at the target oxygen saturation (SpO(2)). The other two effect variables were the time spent in hyperoxia (target SpO(2)+5%) and in severe hypoxaemia (SpO(2) <85%). The resamplings were based on data from a randomised controlled trial with 47 patients with COPD hospitalised for acute exacerbations. RESULTS: FreeO(2) generated savings of 20.7% of the per-patient costs at 180 days (ie, -$C2959.71). This decrease is nevertheless not significant at the 95% threshold (P=0.13), but the effect variables all improved (P<0.001). The improvement in the time spent at the target SpO(2) was 56.3%. The ICERs indicate that FreeO(2) technology is more cost-effective than manual oxygen titration with a savings of -$C96.91 per percentage point of time spent at the target SpO(2) (95% CI -301.26 to 116.96). CONCLUSION: FreeO(2) technology could significantly enhance the efficiency of the health system by reducing per-patient costs at 180 days. A study with a larger patient sample needs to be carried out to confirm these preliminary results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01393015; Post-results.