Comparative cost-effectiveness of termination of resuscitation rules for patients transported in cardiac arrest.

AIM: To compare the cost-effectiveness of termination-of-resuscitation (TOR) rules for patients transported in cardiac arrest. METHODS: The economic analyses evaluated cost-effectiveness of alternative TOR rules for OHCA from a National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS) perspective over a lifetime horizon. A systematic review was used to identify the different TOR rules included in the analyses. Data from the OHCAO outcomes registry, trial data and published literature were used to compare outcomes for the different rules identified. The economic analyses estimated discounted NHS and PSS costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for each TOR rule, based on which incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 33 TOR rules and the economic analyses assessed the performance of 29 of these TOR rules plus current practice. The most cost-effective strategies were the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) termination of resuscitation rule (ICER of £8,111), the Korean Cardiac Arrest Research Consortium 2 (KOC 2) termination of resuscitation rule (ICER of £17,548), and the universal Basic Life Support (BLS) termination of resuscitation rule (ICER of £19,498,216). The KOC 2 TOR rule was cost-effective at the established cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000-£30,000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: The KOC 2 rule is the most cost-effective at established cost-effectiveness thresholds used to inform health care decision-making in the UK. Further research on economic implications of TOR rules is warranted to support constructive discussion on implementing TOR rules.

Prehospital early warning scores for adults with suspected sepsis: the PHEWS observational cohort and decision-analytic modelling study.

Background: Guidelines for sepsis recommend treating those at highest risk within 1 hour. The emergency care system can only achieve this if sepsis is recognised and prioritised. Ambulance services can use prehospital early warning scores alongside paramedic diagnostic impression to prioritise patients for treatment or early assessment in the emergency department. Objectives: To determine the accuracy, impact and cost-effectiveness of using early warning scores alongside paramedic diagnostic impression to identify sepsis requiring urgent treatment. Design: Retrospective diagnostic cohort study and decision-analytic modelling of operational consequences and cost-effectiveness. Setting: Two ambulance services and four acute hospitals in England. Participants: Adults transported to hospital by emergency ambulance, excluding episodes with injury, mental health problems, cardiac arrest, direct transfer to specialist services, or no vital signs recorded. Interventions: Twenty-one early warning scores used alongside paramedic diagnostic impression, categorised as sepsis, infection, non-specific presentation, or other specific presentation. Main outcome measures: Proportion of cases prioritised at the four hospitals; diagnostic accuracy for the sepsis-3 definition of sepsis and receiving urgent treatment (primary reference standard); daily number of cases with and without sepsis prioritised at a large and a small hospital; the minimum treatment effect associated with prioritisation at which each strategy would be cost-effective, compared to no prioritisation, assuming willingness to pay £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results: Data from 95,022 episodes involving 71,204 patients across four hospitals showed that most early warning scores operating at their pre-specified thresholds would prioritise more than 10% of cases when applied to non-specific attendances or all attendances. Data from 12,870 episodes at one hospital identified 348 (2.7%) with the primary reference standard. The National Early Warning Score, version 2 (NEWS2), had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve when applied only to patients with a paramedic diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection (0.756, 95% confidence interval 0.729 to 0.783) or sepsis alone (0.655, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.68). None of the strategies provided high sensitivity (> 0.8) with acceptable positive predictive value (> 0.15). NEWS2 provided combinations of sensitivity and specificity that were similar or superior to all other early warning scores. Applying NEWS2 to paramedic diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection with thresholds of > 4, > 6 and > 8 respectively provided sensitivities and positive predictive values (95% confidence interval) of 0.522 (0.469 to 0.574) and 0.216 (0.189 to 0.245), 0.447 (0.395 to 0.499) and 0.274 (0.239 to 0.313), and 0.314 (0.268 to 0.365) and 0.333 (confidence interval 0.284 to 0.386). The mortality relative risk reduction from prioritisation at which each strategy would be cost-effective exceeded 0.975 for all strategies analysed. Limitations: We estimated accuracy using a sample of older patients at one hospital. Reliable evidence was not available to estimate the effectiveness of prioritisation in the decision-analytic modelling. Conclusions: No strategy is ideal but using NEWS2, in patients with a paramedic diagnostic impression of infection or sepsis could identify one-third to half of sepsis cases without prioritising unmanageable numbers. No other score provided clearly superior accuracy to NEWS2. Research is needed to develop better definition, diagnosis and treatments for sepsis. Study registration: This study is registered as Research Registry (reference: researchregistry5268). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/136/10) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 16. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Sepsis is a life-threatening condition in which an abnormal response to infection causes heart, lung or kidney failure. People with sepsis need urgent treatment. They need to be prioritised at the emergency department rather than waiting in the queue. Paramedics attempt to identify people with possible sepsis using an early warning score (based on simple measurements, such as blood pressure and heart rate) alongside their impression of the patient's diagnosis. They can then alert the hospital to assess the patient quickly. However, an inaccurate early warning score might miss cases of sepsis or unnecessarily prioritise people without sepsis. We aimed to measure how accurately early warning scores identified people with sepsis when used alongside paramedic diagnostic impression. We collected data from 71,204 people that two ambulance services transported to four different hospitals in 2019. We recorded paramedic diagnostic impressions and calculated early warning scores for each patient. At one hospital, we linked ambulance records to hospital records and identified who had sepsis. We then calculated the accuracy of using the scores alongside diagnostic impression to diagnose sepsis. Finally, we used modelling to predict how many patients (with and without sepsis) paramedics would prioritise using different strategies based on early warning scores and diagnostic impression. We found that none of the currently available early warning scores were ideal. When they were applied to all patients, they prioritised too many people. When they were only applied to patients whom the paramedics thought had infection, they missed many cases of sepsis. The NEWS2, score, which ambulance services already use, was as good as or better than all the other scores we studied. We found that using the NEWS2, score in people with a paramedic impression of infection could achieve a reasonable balance between prioritising too many patients and avoiding missing patients with sepsis.

The SWiFT trial (Study of Whole Blood in Frontline Trauma)-the clinical and cost effectiveness of pre-hospital whole blood versus standard care in patients with life-threatening traumatic haemorrhage: study protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Early blood transfusion improves survival in patients with life-threatening bleeding, but the optimal transfusion strategy in the pre-hospital setting has yet to be established. Although there is some evidence of benefit with the use of whole blood, there have been no randomised controlled trials exploring the clinical and cost effectiveness of pre-hospital administration of whole blood versus component therapy for trauma patients with life-threatening bleeding. The aim of this trial is to determine whether pre-hospital leukocyte-depleted whole blood transfusion is better than standard care (blood component transfusion) in reducing the proportion of participants who experience death or massive transfusion at 24 h. METHODS: This is a multi-centre, superiority, open-label, randomised controlled trial with internal pilot and within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis. Patients of any age will be eligible if they have suffered major traumatic haemorrhage and are attended by a participating air ambulance service. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants with traumatic haemorrhage who have died (all-cause mortality) or received massive transfusion in the first 24 h from randomisation. A number of secondary clinical, process, and safety endpoints will be collected and analysed. Cost (provision of whole blood, hospital, health, and wider care resource use) and outcome data will be synthesised to present incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the trial primary outcome and cost per quality-adjusted life year at 90 days after injury. We plan to recruit 848 participants (a two-sided test with 85% power, 5% type I error, 1-1 allocation, and one interim analysis would require 602 participants-after allowing for 25% of participants in traumatic cardiac arrest and an additional 5% drop out, the sample size is 848). DISCUSSION: The SWiFT trial will recruit 848 participants across at least ten air ambulances services in the UK. It will investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of whole blood transfusion versus component therapy in the management of patients with life-threatening bleeding in the pre-hospital setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 23657907; EudraCT: 2021-006876-18; IRAS Number: 300414; REC: 22/SC/0072, 21 Dec 2021.

Randomised trial of the clinical and cost effectiveness of a supraglottic airway device compared with tracheal intubation for in-hospital cardiac arrest (AIRWAYS-3): Protocol, design and implementation.

Survival from in-hospital cardiac arrest is approximately 18%, but for patients who require advanced airway management survival is lower. Those who do survive are often left with significant disability. Traditionally, resuscitation of cardiac arrest patients has included tracheal intubation, however insertion of a supraglottic airway has gained popularity as an alternative approach to advanced airway management. Evidence from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest suggests no significant differences in mortality or morbidity between these two approaches, but there is no randomised evidence for airway management during in-hospital cardiac arrest. The aim of the AIRWAYS-3 randomised trial, described in this protocol paper, is to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of a supraglottic airway versus tracheal intubation during in-hospital cardiac arrest. Patients will be allocated randomly to receive either a supraglottic airway or tracheal intubation as the initial advanced airway management. We will also estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of these two approaches. The primary outcome is functional status, measured using the modified Rankin Scale at hospital discharge or 30 days post-randomisation, whichever occurs first. AIRWAYS-3 presents ethical challenges regarding patient consent and data collection. These include the enrolment of unconscious patients without prior consent in a way that avoids methodological bias. Other complexities include the requirement to randomise patients efficiently during a time-critical cardiac arrest. Many of these challenges are encountered in other emergency care research; we discuss our approaches to addressing them. Trial registration: ISRCTN17720457. Prospectively registered on 29/07/2022.

Adrenaline to improve survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the PARAMEDIC2 RCT.

BACKGROUND: Adrenaline has been used as a treatment for cardiac arrest for many years, despite uncertainty about its effects on long-term outcomes and concerns that it may cause worse neurological outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to evaluate the effects of adrenaline on survival and neurological outcomes, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of adrenaline use. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, randomised, allocation-concealed, placebo-controlled, parallel-group superiority trial and economic evaluation. Costs are expressed in Great British pounds and reported in 2016/17 prices. SETTING: This trial was set in five NHS ambulance services in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Adults treated for an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were included. Patients were ineligible if they were pregnant, if they were aged < 16 years, if the cardiac arrest had been caused by anaphylaxis or life-threatening asthma, or if adrenaline had already been given. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to either adrenaline (1 mg) or placebo in a 1 : 1 allocation ratio by the opening of allocation-concealed treatment packs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was survival to 30 days. The secondary outcomes were survival to hospital admission, survival to hospital discharge, survival at 3, 6 and 12 months, neurological outcomes and health-related quality of life through to 6 months. The economic evaluation assessed the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services. Participants, clinical teams and those assessing patient outcomes were masked to the treatment allocation. RESULTS: From December 2014 to October 2017, 8014 participants were assigned to the adrenaline (n = 4015) or to the placebo (n = 3999) arm. At 30 days, 130 out of 4012 participants (3.2%) in the adrenaline arm and 94 out of 3995 (2.4%) in the placebo arm were alive (adjusted odds ratio for survival 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 1.97). For secondary outcomes, survival to hospital admission was higher for those receiving adrenaline than for those receiving placebo (23.6% vs. 8.0%; adjusted odds ratio 3.83, 95% confidence interval 3.30 to 4.43). The rate of favourable neurological outcome at hospital discharge was not significantly different between the arms (2.2% vs. 1.9%; adjusted odds ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.68). The pattern of improved survival but no significant improvement in neurological outcomes continued through to 6 months. By 12 months, survival in the adrenaline arm was 2.7%, compared with 2.0% in the placebo arm (adjusted odds ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.92). An adjusted subgroup analysis did not identify significant interactions. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for adrenaline was estimated at £1,693,003 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the first 6 months after the cardiac arrest event and £81,070 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the lifetime of survivors. Additional economic analyses estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for adrenaline at £982,880 per percentage point increase in overall survival and £377,232 per percentage point increase in neurological outcomes over the first 6 months after the cardiac arrest. LIMITATIONS: The estimate for survival with a favourable neurological outcome is imprecise because of the small numbers of patients surviving with a good outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Adrenaline improved long-term survival, but there was no evidence that it significantly improved neurological outcomes. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year exceeds the threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year usually supported by the NHS. FUTURE WORK: Further research is required to better understand patients' preferences in relation to survival and neurological outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and to aid interpretation of the trial findings from a patient and public perspective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN73485024 and EudraCT 2014-000792-11. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cardiac arrest is a medical emergency that happens when the heart suddenly stops pumping effectively. When cardiac arrest happens, awareness is lost within seconds. If emergency treatment is not started quickly, the person will die. The first treatments of cardiac arrest involve pressing on the chest, giving rescue breaths and defibrillation (electric shocks applied to the heart). If these treatments do not work, ambulance paramedics use a drug called adrenaline to try to restart the heart. Although this treatment has been used for many years, some recent research suggests that it may cause more harm than good. In this research study, we compared the effects of giving adrenaline with the effects of not giving adrenaline to people who had a cardiac arrest in the community. The research showed that adrenaline was effective at restarting the heart, so more people survived long enough to be admitted to hospital. Thirty days later, 130 out of 4012 patients (3.2%) who received adrenaline and 94 out of 3995 (2.4%) who did not receive adrenaline were alive. However, adrenaline did not improve the number of patients who went home from hospital having made a good recovery and were able to care for themselves. The evidence suggests that adrenaline represents a poor use of NHS funds on cost-effectiveness grounds. In a community survey, 95% of people who responded thought that long-term survival with good brain function was more important than just being alive. Further research exploring the opinions of patients and the public will help to understand the results of this research for the NHS.

Prehospital continuous positive airway pressure for acute respiratory failure: the ACUTE feasibility RCT.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory failure is a life-threatening emergency. Standard prehospital management involves controlled oxygen therapy. Continuous positive airway pressure is a potentially beneficial alternative treatment; however, it is uncertain whether or not this treatment could improve outcomes in NHS ambulance services. OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of a large-scale pragmatic trial and to update an existing economic model to determine cost-effectiveness and the value of further research. DESIGN: (1) An open-label, individual patient randomised controlled external pilot trial. (2) Cost-effectiveness and value-of-information analyses, updating an existing economic model. (3) Ancillary substudies, comprising an acute respiratory failure incidence study, an acute respiratory failure diagnostic agreement study, clinicians perceptions of a continuous positive airway pressure mixed-methods study and an investigation of allocation concealment. SETTING: Four West Midlands Ambulance Service hubs, recruiting between August 2017 and July 2018. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with respiratory distress and peripheral oxygen saturations below the British Thoracic Society's target levels were included. Patients with limited potential to benefit from, or with contraindications to, continuous positive airway pressure were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: Prehospital continuous positive airway pressure (O-Two system, O-Two Medical Technologies Inc., Brampton, ON, Canada) was compared with standard oxygen therapy, titrated to the British Thoracic Society's peripheral oxygen saturation targets. Interventions were provided in identical sealed boxes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility objectives estimated the incidence of eligible patients, the proportion recruited and allocated to treatment appropriately, adherence to allocated treatment, and retention and data completeness. The primary clinical end point was 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients were enrolled (target 120 patients), including seven patients with a diagnosis for which continuous positive airway pressure could be ineffective or harmful. Continuous positive airway pressure was fully delivered to 74% of participants (target 75%). There were no major protocol violations/non-compliances. Full data were available for all key outcomes (target ≥ 90%). Thirty-day mortality was 27.3%. Of the 21 deceased participants, 14 (68%) either did not have a respiratory condition or had ceiling-of-treatment decision implemented that excluded hospital non-invasive ventilation and critical care. The base-case economic evaluation indicated that standard oxygen therapy was probably cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio £5685 per quality-adjusted life-year), but there was considerable uncertainty (population expected value of perfect information of £16.5M). Expected value of partial perfect information analyses indicated that effectiveness of prehospital continuous positive airway pressure was the only important variable. The incidence rate of acute respiratory failure was 17.4 (95% confidence interval 16.3 to 18.5) per 100,000 persons per year. There was moderate agreement between the primary prehospital and final hospital diagnoses (Gwet's AC1 coefficient 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.69). Lack of hospital awareness of the Ambulance continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP): Use, Treatment Effect and economics (ACUTE) trial, limited time to complete trial training and a desire to provide continuous positive airway pressure treatment were highlighted as key challenges by participating clinicians. LIMITATIONS: During week 10 of recruitment, the continuous positive airway pressure arm equipment boxes developed a 'rattle'. After repackaging and redistribution, no further concerns were noted. A total of 41.4% of ambulance service clinicians not participating in the ACUTE trial indicated a difference between the control and the intervention arm trial boxes (115/278); of these clinician 70.4% correctly identified box contents. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment rate was below target and feasibility was not demonstrated. The economic evaluation results suggested that a definitive trial could represent value for money. However, limited compliance with continuous positive airway pressure and difficulty in identifying patients who could benefit from continuous positive airway pressure indicate that prehospital continuous positive airway pressure is unlikely to materially reduce mortality. FUTURE WORK: A definitive clinical effectiveness trial of continuous positive airway pressure in the NHS is not recommended. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12048261. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Acute respiratory failure is a life-threatening medical emergency. It occurs when heart or lung disease suddenly develops, or deteriorates, and leads to the patient being unable to maintain oxygen levels in their blood. Continuous positive airway pressure is a potentially useful treatment that could be used by paramedics. It involves delivering oxygen under increased pressure through a tight-fitting face mask. However, it is uncertain whether or not it could work effectively in NHS ambulance services, or if it represents value for money. The Ambulance continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP): Use, Treatment Effect and economics (ACUTE) trial investigated whether or not it is possible and worthwhile to undertake a full-scale study comparing continuous positive airway pressure with normal paramedic treatment. Paramedics identified adults with acute respiratory failure when attending 999 emergency calls. Half were randomly assigned to receive continuous positive airway pressure, whereas the other half were treated normally. Patients were then followed up to see what happened to them. Fewer patients than expected were entered into the trial, but paramedics were able to provide treatment with continuous positive airway pressure, and most patients were successfully followed up. It therefore seems possible to do a full-scale trial. A cost-effectiveness model also showed that it is uncertain whether or not continuous positive airway pressure represents value for money for the NHS, so further research might be worthwhile, if continuous positive airway pressure is thought to be effective. However, examination of patients recruited to the trial uncovered important doubts about whether or not continuous positive airway pressure would help them. One-quarter of patients were not able to tolerate the tight continuous positive airway pressure mask. Some of the patients had conditions that are not usually treated by continuous positive airway pressure, or had severe underlying disease that could not be helped by this treatment. Others had collapsed lungs that could have been made worse by continuous positive airway pressure. This means that, although a full-scale trial may be possible, it is difficult to see how continuous positive airway pressure could save enough lives to make a trial worthwhile.

Long term outcomes of participants in the PARAMEDIC2 randomised trial of adrenaline in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

AIMS: We recently reported early outcomes in patients enrolled in a randomised trial of adrenaline in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the PARAMEDIC2 (Prehospital Assessment of the Role of Adrenaline: Measuring the Effectiveness of Drug Administration in Cardiac Arrest) trial. The purpose of the present paper is to report long-term survival, quality of life, functional and cognitive outcomes at 3, 6 and 12-months. METHODS: PARAMEDIC2 was a pragmatic, individually randomised, double blind, controlled trial with an economic evaluation. Patients were randomised to either adrenaline or placebo. This paper reports results on the modified Rankin Scale scores at 6-months, survival at 6 and 12-months, as well as other cognitive, functional and quality of life outcomes collected at 3 and 6 months (Two Simple Questions, the Mini Mental State Examination, the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline Evaluation for Cardiac Arrest, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist - Civilian Version, Short-Form 12-item Health Survey and the EuroQoL EQ-5D-5L). RESULTS: 8014 patients were randomised with confirmed trial drug administration. At 6-months, 78 (2.0%) of the patients in the adrenaline group and 58 (1.5%) of patients in the placebo group had a favourable neurological outcome (adjusted odds ratio 1.35 [95% confidence interval: 0.93, 1.97]). 117 (2.9%) patients were alive at 6-months in the adrenaline group compared with 86 (2.2%) in the placebo group (1.43 [1.05, 1.96], reducing to 107 (2.7%) and 80 (2.0%) respectively at 12-months (1.38 [1.00, 1.92]). Measures of 3 and 6-month cognitive, functional and quality of life outcomes were reduced, but there was no strong evidence of differences between groups. CONCLUSION: Adrenaline improved survival through to 12-months follow-up. The study did not find evidence of improvements in favourable neurological outcomes. (ISCRTN 73485024).

Cost-effectiveness of out-of-hospital continuous positive airway pressure for acute respiratory failure: decision analytic modelling using data from a feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Standard prehospital management for Acute respiratory failure (ARF) involves controlled oxygen therapy. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is a potentially beneficial alternative treatment, however, it is uncertain whether this could improve outcomes and provide value for money. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of prehospital CPAP in ARF. METHODS: A cost-utility economic evaluation was performed using a probabilistic decision tree model synthesising available evidence. The model consisted of a hypothetical cohort of patients in a representative ambulance service with undifferentiated ARF, receiving standard oxygen therapy or prehospital CPAP. Costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated using methods recommended by NICE. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, using CPAP effectiveness estimates form the ACUTE trial, the mean expected costs of standard care and prehospital CPAP were £15,201 and £14,850 respectively and the corresponding mean expected QALYs were 1.190 and 1.128, respectively. The mean ICER estimated as standard oxygen therapy compared to prehospital CPAP was £5685 per QALY which indicated that standard oxygen therapy strategy was likely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY (67% probability). The scenario analysis, using effectiveness estimates from an updated meta-analysis, suggested that prehospital CPAP was more effective (mean incremental QALYs of 0.157), but also more expensive (mean incremental costs of £1522), than standard care. The mean ICER, estimated as prehospital CPAP compared to standard care, was £9712 per QALY. At the £20,000 per QALY prehospital CPAP was highly likely to be the most cost-effective strategy (94%). CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness of prehospital CPAP depends upon the estimate of effectiveness. When based on a small pragmatic feasibility trial, standard oxygen therapy is cost-effective. When based on meta-analysis of heterogeneous trials, CPAP is cost-effective. Value of information analyses support commissioning of a large pragmatic effectiveness trial, providing feasibility and plausibility conditions are met.

Cost-effectiveness of adrenaline for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: The 'Prehospital Assessment of the Role of Adrenaline: Measuring the Effectiveness of Drug Administration In Cardiac Arrest' (PARAMEDIC2) trial showed that adrenaline improves overall survival, but not neurological outcomes. We sought to determine the within-trial and lifetime health and social care costs and benefits associated with adrenaline, including secondary benefits from organ donation. METHODS: We estimated the costs, benefits (quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) associated with adrenaline during the 6-month trial follow-up. Model-based analyses explored how results altered when the time horizon was extended beyond 6 months and the scope extended to include recipients of donated organs. RESULTS: The within-trial (6 months) and lifetime horizon economic evaluations focussed on the trial population produced ICERs of £1,693,003 (€1,946,953) and £81,070 (€93,231) per QALY gained in 2017 prices, respectively, reflecting significantly higher mean costs and only marginally higher mean QALYs in the adrenaline group. The probability that adrenaline is cost-effective was less than 1% across a range of cost-effectiveness thresholds. Combined direct economic effects over the lifetimes of survivors and indirect economic effects in organ recipients produced an ICER of £16,086 (€18,499) per QALY gained for adrenaline with the probability that adrenaline is cost-effective increasing to 90% at a £30,000 (€34,500) per QALY cost-effectiveness threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Adrenaline was not cost-effective when only directly related costs and consequences are considered. However, incorporating the indirect economic effects associated with transplanted organs substantially alters cost-effectiveness, suggesting decision-makers should consider the complexity of direct and indirect economic impacts of adrenaline. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN73485024 . Registered on 13 March 2014.

Is Protocolised Weaning that Includes Early Extubation Onto Non-Invasive Ventilation More Cost Effective Than Protocolised Weaning Without Non-Invasive Ventilation? Findings from the Breathe Study.

BACKGROUND: Optimising techniques to wean patients from invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) remains a key goal of intensive care practice. The use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) as a weaning strategy (transitioning patients who are difficult to wean to early NIV) may reduce mortality, ventilator-associated pneumonia and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to determine the cost effectiveness of protocolised weaning, including early extubation onto NIV, compared with weaning without NIV in a UK National Health Service setting. METHODS: We conducted an economic evaluation alongside a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Patients were randomised to either protocol-directed weaning from mechanical ventilation or ongoing IMV with daily spontaneous breathing trials. The primary efficacy outcome was time to liberation from ventilation. Bivariate regression of costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) provided estimates of the incremental cost per QALY and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) overall and for subgroups [presence/absence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and operative status]. Long-term cost effectiveness was determined through extrapolation of survival curves using flexible parametric modelling. RESULTS: NIV was associated with a mean INMB of £620 ($US885) (cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per QALY) with a corresponding probability of 58% that NIV is cost effective. The probability that NIV is cost effective was higher for those with COPD (84%). NIV was cost effective over 5 years, with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £4618 ($US6594 per QALY gained). CONCLUSIONS: The probability of NIV being cost effective relative to weaning without NIV ranged between 57 and 59% overall and between 82 and 87% for the COPD subgroup.

Protocolised non-invasive compared with invasive weaning from mechanical ventilation for adults in intensive care: the Breathe RCT.

BACKGROUND: Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is a life-saving intervention. Following resolution of the condition that necessitated IMV, a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) is used to determine patient readiness for IMV discontinuation. In patients who fail one or more SBTs, there is uncertainty as to the optimum management strategy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using non-invasive ventilation (NIV) as an intermediate step in the protocolised weaning of patients from IMV. DESIGN: Pragmatic, open-label, parallel-group randomised controlled trial, with cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING: A total of 51 critical care units across the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adult intensive care patients who had received IMV for at least 48 hours, who were categorised as ready to wean from ventilation, and who failed a SBT. INTERVENTIONS: Control group (invasive weaning): patients continued to receive IMV with daily SBTs. A weaning protocol was used to wean pressure support based on the patient's condition. Intervention group (non-invasive weaning): patients were extubated to NIV. A weaning protocol was used to wean inspiratory positive airway pressure, based on the patient's condition. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was time to liberation from ventilation. Secondary outcome measures included mortality, duration of IMV, proportion of patients receiving antibiotics for a presumed respiratory infection and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: A total of 364 patients (invasive weaning, n = 182; non-invasive weaning, n = 182) were randomised. Groups were well matched at baseline. There was no difference between the invasive weaning and non-invasive weaning groups in median time to liberation from ventilation {invasive weaning 108 hours [interquartile range (IQR) 57-351 hours] vs. non-invasive weaning 104.3 hours [IQR 34.5-297 hours]; hazard ratio 1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.89 to 1.39; p = 0.352}. There was also no difference in mortality between groups at any time point. Patients in the non-invasive weaning group had fewer IMV days [invasive weaning 4 days (IQR 2-11 days) vs. non-invasive weaning 1 day (IQR 0-7 days); adjusted mean difference -3.1 days, 95% CI -5.75 to -0.51 days]. In addition, fewer non-invasive weaning patients required antibiotics for a respiratory infection [odds ratio (OR) 0.60, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.00; p = 0.048]. A higher proportion of non-invasive weaning patients required reintubation than those in the invasive weaning group (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.24). The within-trial economic evaluation showed that NIV was associated with a lower net cost and a higher net effect, and was dominant in health economic terms. The probability that NIV was cost-effective was estimated at 0.58 at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. CONCLUSIONS: A protocolised non-invasive weaning strategy did not reduce time to liberation from ventilation. However, patients who underwent non-invasive weaning had fewer days requiring IMV and required fewer antibiotics for respiratory infections. FUTURE WORK: In patients who fail a SBT, which factors predict an adverse outcome (reintubation, tracheostomy, death) if extubated and weaned using NIV? TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15635197. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Patients who become very unwell may require help from a breathing machine. This requires the patient to be given drugs to put them to sleep (sedation) and have a tube placed through their mouth directly into the windpipe (tube ventilation). This can be life-saving, but may cause harm if used for long periods of time. Non-invasive ventilation (mask ventilation) provides breathing support through a mask that covers the face. Mask ventilation has several advantages over tube ventilation, such as less need for sedation, and it enables the patient to cough and communicate. In previous studies, switching patients from tube to mask ventilation when they start to get better seemed to improve survival rates and reduce complications. The Breathe trial tested if using a protocol to remove tube ventilation and replace it with mask ventilation is better than continuing with tube ventilation until the patient no longer needs breathing machine support. The trial recruited 364 patients. Half of these patients were randomly selected to have the tube removed and replaced with mask ventilation and half were randomly selected to continue with tube ventilation until they no longer needed breathing machine support. The mask group spent 3 fewer days receiving tube ventilation, although the overall time needing breathing machine help (mask and tube) did not change. Fewer patients in the mask group needed antibiotics for chest infections. After removing the tube, twice as many patients needed the tube again in the mask group as in the tube group. There were no differences between the groups in the number of adverse (harm) events or the number of patients who survived to leave hospital. Mask ventilation was no more expensive than tube ventilation. In conclusion, mask ventilation may be an effective alternative to continued tube ventilation when patients start to get better in intensive care.

Rationale and design of: A Randomized tRial of Expedited transfer to a cardiac arrest center for non-ST elevation out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: The ARREST randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a global public health issue. There is wide variation in both regional and inter-hospital survival rates from OHCA and overall survival remains poor at 7%. Regionalization of care into cardiac arrest centers (CAC) improves outcomes following cardiac arrest from ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) through concentration of services and greater provider experience. The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) recommends delivery of all post-arrest patients to a CAC, but that randomized controlled trials are necessary in patients without ST elevation (STE). METHODS/DESIGN: Following completion of a pilot randomized trial to assess safety and feasibility of conducting a large-scale randomized controlled trial in patients following OHCA of presumed cardiac cause without STE, we present the rationale and design of A Randomized tRial of Expedited transfer to a cardiac arrest center for non-ST elevation OHCA (ARREST). In total 860 patients will be enrolled and randomized (1:1) to expedited transfer to CAC (24/7 access to interventional cardiology facilities, cooling and goal-directed therapies) or to the current standard of care, which comprises delivery to the nearest emergency department. Primary outcome is 30-day all-cause mortality and secondary outcomes are 30-day and 3-month neurological status and 3, 6 and 12-month mortality. Patients will be followed up for one year after enrolment. CONCLUSION: Post-arrest care is time-critical, requires a multi-disciplinary approach and may be more optimally delivered in centers with greater provider experience. This trial would help to demonstrate if regionalization of post-arrest care to CACs reduces mortality in patients without STE, which could dramatically reshape emergency care provision.

Ethical challenges in resuscitation.

PURPOSE: A rapidly evolving resuscitation science provides more effective treatments to an aging population with multiple comorbidites. Concurrently, emergency care has become patient-centered. This review aims to describe challenges associated with the application of key principles of bioethics in resuscitation and post-resuscitation care; propose actions to address these challenges; and highlight the need for evidence-based ethics and consensus on ethical principles interpretation. METHODS: Following agreement on the article's outline, subgroups of 2-3 authors provided narrative reviews of ethical issues concerning autonomy and honesty, beneficence/nonmaleficence and dignity, justice, specific practices/circumstances such as family presence during resuscitation, and emergency research. Proposals for addressing ethical challenges were also offered. RESULTS: Respect for patient autonomy can be realized through honest provision of information, shared decision-making, and advance directives/care planning. Essential prerequisites comprise public and specific healthcare professionals' education, appropriate regulatory provisions, and allocation of adequate resources. Regarding beneficence/nonmaleficence, resuscitation should benefit patients, while avoiding harm from futile interventions; pertinent practice should be based on neurological prognostication and patient/family-reported outcomes. Regarding dignity, aggressive life-sustaining treatments against patients preferences should be avoided. Contrary to the principle of justice, resuscitation quality may be affected by race/income status, age, ethnicity, comorbidity, and location (urban versus rural or country-specific/region-specific). Current evidence supports family presence during resuscitation. Regarding emergency research, autonomy should be respected without hindering scientific progress; furthermore, transparency of research conduct should be promoted and funding increased. CONCLUSIONS: Major ethical challenges in resuscitation science need to be addressed through complex/resource-demanding interventions. Such actions require support by ongoing/future research.

Barriers and facilitators to public access defibrillation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a systematic review.

Public access defibrillation initiatives make automated external defibrillators available to the public. This facilitates earlier defibrillation of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest victims and could save many lives. It is currently only used for a minority of cases. The aim of this systematic review was to identify barriers and facilitators to public access defibrillation. A comprehensive literature review was undertaken defining formal search terms for a systematic review of the literature in March 2017. Studies were included if they considered reasons affecting the likelihood of public access defibrillation and presented original data. An electronic search strategy was devised searching MEDLINE and EMBASE, supplemented by bibliography and related-article searches. Given the low-quality and observational nature of the majority of articles, a narrative review was performed. Sixty-four articles were identified in the initial literature search. An additional four unique articles were identified from the electronic search strategies. The following themes were identified related to public access defibrillation: knowledge and awareness; willingness to use; acquisition and maintenance; availability and accessibility; training issues; registration and regulation; medicolegal issues; emergency medical services dispatch-assisted use of automated external defibrillators; automated external defibrillator-locator systems; demographic factors; other behavioural factors. In conclusion, several barriers and facilitators to public access defibrillation deployment were identified. However, the evidence is of very low quality and there is not enough information to inform changes in practice. This is an area in urgent need of further high-quality research if public access defibrillation is to be increased and more lives saved. PROSPERO registration number CRD42016035543.

The cost-effectiveness of a mechanical compression device in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

AIM: To assess the cost-effectiveness of LUCAS-2, a mechanical device for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) as compared to manual chest compressions in adults with non-traumatic, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. METHODS: We analysed patient-level data from a large, pragmatic, multi-centre trial linked to administrative secondary care data from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) to measure healthcare resource use, costs and outcomes in both arms. A within-trial analysis using quality adjusted life years derived from the EQ-5D-3L was conducted at 12-month follow-up and results were extrapolated to the lifetime horizon using a decision-analytic model. RESULTS: 4471 patients were enrolled in the trial (1652 assigned to the LUCAS-2 group, 2819 assigned to the control group). At 12 months, 89 (5%) patients survived in the LUCAS-2 group and 175 (6%) survived in the manual CPR group. In the vast majority of analyses conducted, both within-trial and by extrapolation of the results over a lifetime horizon, manual CPR dominates LUCAS-2. In other words, patients in the LUCAS-2 group had poorer health outcomes (i.e. lower QALYs) and incurred higher health and social care costs. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that the use of the mechanical chest compression device LUCAS-2 represents poor value for money when compared to standard manual chest compression in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Prehospital randomised assessment of a mechanical compression device in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC): a pragmatic, cluster randomised trial and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical chest compression devices may help to maintain high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but little evidence exists for their effectiveness. We evaluated whether or not the introduction of Lund University Cardiopulmonary Assistance System-2 (LUCAS-2; Jolife AB, Lund, Sweden) mechanical CPR into front-line emergency response vehicles would improve survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of the LUCAS-2 device as a routine ambulance service treatment for OHCA. DESIGN: Pragmatic, cluster randomised trial including adults with non-traumatic OHCA. Ambulance dispatch staff and those collecting the primary outcome were blind to treatment allocation. Blinding of the ambulance staff who delivered the interventions and reported initial response to treatment was not possible. We also conducted a health economic evaluation and a systematic review of all trials of out-of-hospital mechanical chest compression. SETTING: Four UK ambulance services (West Midlands, North East England, Wales and South Central), comprising 91 urban and semiurban ambulance stations. Clusters were ambulance service vehicles, which were randomly assigned (approximately 1 : 2) to the LUCAS-2 device or manual CPR. PARTICIPANTS: Patients were included if they were in cardiac arrest in the out-of-hospital environment. Exclusions were patients with cardiac arrest as a result of trauma, with known or clinically apparent pregnancy, or aged < 18 years. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received LUCAS-2 mechanical chest compression or manual chest compressions according to the first trial vehicle to arrive on scene. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Survival at 30 days following cardiac arrest; survival without significant neurological impairment [Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) score of 1 or 2]. RESULTS: We enrolled 4471 eligible patients (1652 assigned to the LUCAS-2 device and 2819 assigned to control) between 15 April 2010 and 10 June 2013. A total of 985 (60%) patients in the LUCAS-2 group received mechanical chest compression and 11 (< 1%) patients in the control group received LUCAS-2. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 30-day survival was similar in the LUCAS-2 (104/1652, 6.3%) and manual CPR groups [193/2819, 6.8%; adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.15]. Survival with a CPC score of 1 or 2 may have been worse in the LUCAS-2 group (adjusted OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.99). No serious adverse events were noted. The systematic review found no evidence of a survival advantage if mechanical chest compression was used. The health economic analysis showed that LUCAS-2 was dominated by manual chest compression. LIMITATIONS: There was substantial non-compliance in the LUCAS-2 arm. For 272 out of 1652 patients (16.5%), mechanical chest compression was not used for reasons that would not occur in clinical practice. We addressed this issue by using complier average causal effect analyses. We attempted to measure CPR quality during the resuscitation attempts of trial participants, but were unable to do so. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of improvement in 30-day survival with LUCAS-2 compared with manual compressions. Our systematic review of recent randomised trials did not suggest that survival or survival without significant disability may be improved by the use of mechanical chest compression. FUTURE WORK: The use of mechanical chest compression for in-hospital cardiac arrest, and in specific circumstances (e.g. transport), has not yet been evaluated. TRIAI REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN08233942. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Pre-hospital Assessment of the Role of Adrenaline: Measuring the Effectiveness of Drug administration In Cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC-2): Trial protocol.

Despite its use since the 1960s, the safety or effectiveness of adrenaline as a treatment for cardiac arrest has never been comprehensively evaluated in a clinical trial. Although most studies have found that adrenaline increases the chance of return of spontaneous circulation for short periods, many studies found harmful effects on the brain and raise concern that adrenaline may reduce overall survival and/or good neurological outcome. The PARAMEDIC-2 trial seeks to determine if adrenaline is safe and effective in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This is a pragmatic, individually randomised, double blind, controlled trial with a parallel economic evaluation. Participants will be eligible if they are in cardiac arrest in the out-of-hospital environment and advanced life support is initiated. Exclusions are cardiac arrest as a result of anaphylaxis or life threatening asthma, and patient known or appearing to be under 16 or pregnant. 8000 participants treated by 5 UK ambulance services will be randomised between December 2014 and August 2017 to adrenaline (intervention) or placebo (control) through opening pre-randomised drug packs. Clinical outcomes are survival to 30 days (primary outcome), hospital discharge, 3, 6 and 12 months, health related quality of life, and neurological and cognitive outcomes (secondary outcomes). Trial registration (ISRCTN73485024).

Sepsis: the LightCycler SeptiFast Test MGRADE®, SepsiTest™ and IRIDICA BAC BSI assay for rapidly identifying bloodstream bacteria and fungi - a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis can lead to multiple organ failure and death. Timely and appropriate treatment can reduce in-hospital mortality and morbidity. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three tests [LightCycler SeptiFast Test MGRADE(®) (Roche Diagnostics, Risch-Rotkreuz, Switzerland); SepsiTest(TM) (Molzym Molecular Diagnostics, Bremen, Germany); and the IRIDICA BAC BSI assay (Abbott Diagnostics, Lake Forest, IL, USA)] for the rapid identification of bloodstream bacteria and fungi in patients with suspected sepsis compared with standard practice (blood culture with or without matrix-absorbed laser desorption/ionisation time-of-flight mass spectrometry). DATA SOURCES: Thirteen electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library) were searched from January 2006 to May 2015 and supplemented by hand-searching relevant articles. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness studies were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a de novo health economic model was constructed. A decision tree was used to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with each test; all other parameters were estimated from published sources. The model was populated with evidence from the systematic review or individual studies, if this was considered more appropriate (base case 1). In a secondary analysis, estimates (based on experience and opinion) from seven clinicians regarding the benefits of earlier test results were sought (base case 2). A NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty. RESULTS: For the review of diagnostic test accuracy, 62 studies of varying methodological quality were included. A meta-analysis of 54 studies comparing SeptiFast with blood culture found that SeptiFast had an estimated summary specificity of 0.86 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.84 to 0.89] and sensitivity of 0.65 (95% CrI 0.60 to 0.71). Four studies comparing SepsiTest with blood culture found that SepsiTest had an estimated summary specificity of 0.86 (95% CrI 0.78 to 0.92) and sensitivity of 0.48 (95% CrI 0.21 to 0.74), and four studies comparing IRIDICA with blood culture found that IRIDICA had an estimated summary specificity of 0.84 (95% CrI 0.71 to 0.92) and sensitivity of 0.81 (95% CrI 0.69 to 0.90). Owing to the deficiencies in study quality for all interventions, diagnostic accuracy data should be treated with caution. No randomised clinical trial evidence was identified that indicated that any of the tests significantly improved key patient outcomes, such as mortality or duration in an intensive care unit or hospital. Base case 1 estimated that none of the three tests provided a benefit to patients compared with standard practice and thus all tests were dominated. In contrast, in base case 2 it was estimated that all cost per QALY-gained values were below £20,000; the IRIDICA BAC BSI assay had the highest estimated incremental net benefit, but results from base case 2 should be treated with caution as these are not evidence based. LIMITATIONS: Robust data to accurately assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the interventions are currently unavailable. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the interventions cannot be reliably determined with the current evidence base. Appropriate studies, which allow information from the tests to be implemented in clinical practice, are required. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015016724. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Pre-hospital non-invasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive ventilation (NIV), in the form of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or bilevel inspiratory positive airway pressure (BiPAP), is used in hospital to treat patients with acute respiratory failure. Pre-hospital NIV may be more effective than in-hospital NIV but requires additional ambulance service resources. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pre-hospital NIV compared with usual care for adults presenting to the emergency services with acute respiratory failure and to identify priorities for future research. DATA SOURCES: Fourteen electronic databases and research registers (including MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) were searched from inception to August 2013, supplemented by hand-searching reference lists and contacting experts in the field. REVIEW METHODS: We included all randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of pre-hospital NIV in patients with acute respiratory failure. Methodological quality was assessed according to established criteria. An aggregate data network meta-analysis (NMA) of mortality and intubation was used to jointly estimate intervention effects relative to usual care. A NMA, using individual patient-level data (IPD) and aggregate data where IPD were not available, was carried out to assess whether or not covariates were treatment effect modifiers. A de novo economic model was developed to explore the costs and health outcomes when pre-hospital NIV (specifically CPAP provided by paramedics) and standard care (in-hospital NIV) were applied to a hypothetical cohort of patients with acute respiratory failure. RESULTS: The literature searches identified 2284 citations. Of the 10 studies that met the inclusion criteria, eight were randomised controlled trials and two were quasi-randomised trials (six CPAP; four BiPAP; sample sizes 23-207 participants). IPD were available from seven trials (650 patients). The aggregate data NMA suggested that CPAP was the most effective treatment in terms of mortality (probability = 0.989) and intubation rate (probability = 0.639), and reduced both mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.41, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.20 to 0.77] and intubation rate (OR 0.32, 95% CrI 0.17 to 0.62) compared with standard care. The effect of BiPAP on mortality (OR 1.94, 95% CrI 0.65 to 6.14) and intubation rate (OR 0.40, 95% CrI 0.14 to 1.16) compared with standard care was uncertain. The combined IPD and aggregate data NMA suggested that sex was a statistically significant treatment effect modifier for mortality. The economic analysis showed that pre-hospital CPAP was more effective and more expensive than standard care, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £20,514 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and a 49.5% probability of being cost-effective at the £20,000-per-QALY threshold. Variation in the incidence of eligible patients had a marked impact on cost-effectiveness and the expected value of sample information for a future randomised trial. LIMITATIONS: The meta-analysis lacked power to detect potentially important differences in outcome (particularly for BiPAP), the intervention was not always compared with the best alternative care (in-hospital NIV) in the primary studies and findings may not be generalisable. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-hospital CPAP can reduce mortality and intubation rates, but cost-effectiveness is uncertain and the value of further randomised evaluation depends on the incidence of suitable patients. A feasibility study is required to determine if a large pragmatic trial of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness is appropriate. STUDY REGISTRATION: The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002933. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Rapid detection of health-care-associated bloodstream infection in critical care using multipathogen real-time polymerase chain reaction technology: a diagnostic accuracy study and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in the potential utility of real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in diagnosing bloodstream infection by detecting pathogen deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) in blood samples within a few hours. SeptiFast (Roche Diagnostics GmBH, Mannheim, Germany) is a multipathogen probe-based system targeting ribosomal DNA sequences of bacteria and fungi. It detects and identifies the commonest pathogens causing bloodstream infection. As background to this study, we report a systematic review of Phase III diagnostic accuracy studies of SeptiFast, which reveals uncertainty about its likely clinical utility based on widespread evidence of deficiencies in study design and reporting with a high risk of bias. OBJECTIVE: Determine the accuracy of SeptiFast real-time PCR for the detection of health-care-associated bloodstream infection, against standard microbiological culture. DESIGN: Prospective multicentre Phase III clinical diagnostic accuracy study using the standards for the reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies criteria. SETTING: Critical care departments within NHS hospitals in the north-west of England. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients requiring blood culture (BC) when developing new signs of systemic inflammation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: SeptiFast real-time PCR results at species/genus level compared with microbiological culture in association with independent adjudication of infection. Metrics of diagnostic accuracy were derived including sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and predictive values, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Latent class analysis was used to explore the diagnostic performance of culture as a reference standard. RESULTS: Of 1006 new patient episodes of systemic inflammation in 853 patients, 922 (92%) met the inclusion criteria and provided sufficient information for analysis. Index test assay failure occurred on 69 (7%) occasions. Adult patients had been exposed to a median of 8 days (interquartile range 4-16 days) of hospital care, had high levels of organ support activities and recent antibiotic exposure. SeptiFast real-time PCR, when compared with culture-proven bloodstream infection at species/genus level, had better specificity (85.8%, 95% CI 83.3% to 88.1%) than sensitivity (50%, 95% CI 39.1% to 60.8%). When compared with pooled diagnostic metrics derived from our systematic review, our clinical study revealed lower test accuracy of SeptiFast real-time PCR, mainly as a result of low diagnostic sensitivity. There was a low prevalence of BC-proven pathogens in these patients (9.2%, 95% CI 7.4% to 11.2%) such that the post-test probabilities of both a positive (26.3%, 95% CI 19.8% to 33.7%) and a negative SeptiFast test (5.6%, 95% CI 4.1% to 7.4%) indicate the potential limitations of this technology in the diagnosis of bloodstream infection. However, latent class analysis indicates that BC has a low sensitivity, questioning its relevance as a reference test in this setting. Using this analysis approach, the sensitivity of the SeptiFast test was low but also appeared significantly better than BC. Blood samples identified as positive by either culture or SeptiFast real-time PCR were associated with a high probability (> 95%) of infection, indicating higher diagnostic rule-in utility than was apparent using conventional analyses of diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSION: SeptiFast real-time PCR on blood samples may have rapid rule-in utility for the diagnosis of health-care-associated bloodstream infection but the lack of sensitivity is a significant limiting factor. Innovations aimed at improved diagnostic sensitivity of real-time PCR in this setting are urgently required. Future work recommendations include technology developments to improve the efficiency of pathogen DNA extraction and the capacity to detect a much broader range of pathogens and drug resistance genes and the application of new statistical approaches able to more reliably assess test performance in situation where the reference standard (e.g. blood culture in the setting of high antimicrobial use) is prone to error. STUDY REGISTRATION: The systematic review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42011001289. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. Professor Daniel McAuley and Professor Gavin D Perkins contributed to the systematic review through their funded roles as codirectors of the Intensive Care Foundation (UK).