Cost-effectiveness Analysis of AngioJet and CDT for Lower Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis Among Chinese Population.

AngioJet has sufficient safety and efficacy in the treatment of acute and subacute lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (LEDVT). But the price of consumables used by AngioJet is relatively high and there is a lack of relevant research on health economics to measure the benefits to patients. Objective of this study is to estimate the cost effectiveness of AngioJet compared with catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) among Chinese population. Using a Markov decision model, we compared the 2 treatment strategies in patients with LEDVT. The model captured the development of post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS), recurrent venous thromboembolism, and treatment-related adverse events within a lifetime horizon and the perspective of a third-party payer. Model uncertainty was assessed with one-way and Monte Carl sensitivity analyses. The clinical inputs were obtained from the literature. Costs obtained from the hospital accounts and the literature are expressed in US dollars ($). Utilities were defined as quality adjusted life years (QALY). In cost-effectiveness analysis, AngioJet accumulated $1064.6445/QALY compared with $2080.1561/QALY after CDT treatment alone. AngioJet has higher long-term cost-effectiveness than CDT at a willingness to pay threshold of $11 233.52. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the utilities of PTS and post-LEDVT state had significant influence on the results and the model maintained a strong stability under ± 10% fluctuation of utilities. Monte Carl sensitivity analysis shows that AngioJet model has strong stability and AngioJet has higher long-term cost-effectiveness than CDT. AngioJet is likely to be a cost-effective alternative to the CDT for patients with LEDVT.

[Efficacy and safety of early physical therapy for acute gastrointestinal injury during mechanical ventilation in patients with sepsis: a randomized controlled pilot trial].

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the therapeutic effect and safety of early physical therapy for acute gastrointestinal injury (AGI) in septic patients receiving mechanical ventilation. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in the ICU of a tertiary teaching hospital from May, 2017 to March, 2018. The patients diagnosed with sepsis complicated by AGI during mechanical ventilation were recruited and block-randomized into intervention group and control group. Both groups received standard therapy of sepsis, and the patients in the intervention group also received physical therapy as soon as they were hemodynamically stable. The outcome measures included the recovery of AGI, ICU mortality, duration and outcomes of mechanical ventilation and the length of ICU stay. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients were initially included, and 34 of them completed the study, including 16 in the intervention group and 18 in the control group. After physical rehabilitation, the number of patients with a cure of AGI did not significantly differ between the two group (P > 0.05). Nonetheless, the reduction of AGI scores after the treatments differed significantly between the intervention group and the control group (-1.9±2.1 vs 0.9± 1.6, P < 0.05). No significant differences were found between the two groups in ICU mortality, duration and outcomes of mechanical ventilation, or the length of ICU stay (P > 0.05). In the intervention group, the incidence of exercise-related adverse events was 3.33%, and severe organ injury or death occurred in none of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Early rehabilitation therapy does not reduce the incidence of AGI but can lower AGI scores and alleviate gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with sepsis during mechanical ventilation. The results still await further verification by welldesigned multicenter clinical trials with large sample sizes.