RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the expected value of undertaking a future randomized controlled trial of thresholds used to initiate invasive ventilation compared with usual care in hypoxemic respiratory failure. PERSPECTIVE: Publicly funded healthcare payer. SETTING: Critical care units capable of providing invasive ventilation and unconstrained by resource limitations during usual (nonpandemic) practice. METHODS: We performed a model-based cost-utility estimation with individual-level simulation and value-of-information analysis focused on adults, admitted to critical care, receiving noninvasive oxygen. In the primary scenario, we compared hypothetical threshold A to usual care, where threshold A resulted in increased use of invasive ventilation and improved survival compared with usual care. In the secondary scenario, we compared hypothetical threshold B to usual care, where threshold B resulted in decreased use of invasive ventilation and similar survival compared with usual care. We assumed a willingness-to-pay of 100,000 Canadian dollars (CADs) per quality-adjusted life year. RESULTS: In the primary scenario, threshold A was cost-effective compared with usual care due to improved hospital survival (78.1% vs. 75.1%), despite more use of invasive ventilation (62% vs. 30%) and higher lifetime costs (86,900 vs. 75,500 CAD). In the secondary scenario, threshold B was cost-effective compared with usual care due to similar survival (74.5% vs. 74.6%) with less use of invasive ventilation (20.2% vs. 27.6%) and lower lifetime costs (71,700 vs. 74,700 CAD). Value-of-information analysis showed that the expected value to Canadian society over 10 years of a 400-person randomized trial comparing a threshold for invasive ventilation to usual care in hypoxemic respiratory failure was 1.35 billion CAD or more in both scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: It would be highly valuable to society to identify thresholds that, in comparison to usual care, either increase survival or reduce invasive ventilation without reducing survival.