Economic Outcomes of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation With and Without Ambulation as a Bridge to Lung Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of centers are using active rehabilitation and ambulation for critically ill patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as a bridge to lung transplantation. This investigation assessed the economic impact at a single center of ambulatory versus non-ambulatory ECMO strategies as a bridge to lung transplantation. METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort analysis of all subjects supported with ECMO as a bridge to lung transplantation (N = 9) from 2007 to 2012. Subjects who were rehabilitated while supported with ECMO before lung transplantation were compared with those who were not rehabilitated during ECMO. Hospital cost data for the month before transplantation through 12 months after the initial post-transplant hospital discharge were compared. RESULTS: The median cost (interquartile range [IQR]) in the 30 d before transplant for the ambulatory cohort was $88,137 (IQR $38,589-$122,111) compared with $52,124 (IQR $23,824-$69,929) for the non-ambulatory cohort (P = .08). The median post-transplant ICU cost for the ambulatory cohort was $38,468 (IQR $23,611-$64,126) compared with $143,407 (IQR $112,199-$168,993) for the non-ambulatory cohort (P = .01). The median total hospital cost for subjects supported with ambulatory ECMO was $213,086 (IQR $166,767-$264,536) compared with $273,291 (IQR $237,299-$374,175) for non-ambulatory ECMO subjects (P = .05). The median total cost for the ambulatory cohort was $268,194 (IQR $219,972-$517,320) compared with $300,307 (IQR $274,262-$394,913) for the non-ambulatory cohort (P = .14). CONCLUSIONS: Subjects supported with ambulatory ECMO had a 22% ($60,204) reduction in total hospital cost, 73% ($104,939) reduction in post-transplant ICU cost, and 11% ($32,133) reduction in total cost compared with non-ambulatory ECMO subjects. This analysis demonstrates the potential economic benefit of rehabilitation and ambulation during ECMO compared with a traditional strategy.

Perceptions of 24/7 in-hospital intensivist coverage on pediatric housestaff education.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the focus on patient safety and housestaff supervision has led to a steady increase in institutions providing 24/7 in-hospital (also known as in-house, henceforth referred to as IH) coverage by pediatric intensivists. Effects of this increased attending physician presence on education of pediatric housestaff have not been studied. We hypothesized that IH coverage would decrease perceived autonomy of housestaff and negatively affect their preparedness to be independent attending physicians on completion of training. METHODS: A secure, anonymous, Web-based survey was sent to pediatric intensivists in the United States and Canada, and pediatric critical care fellows and pediatric residents at academic centers across the United States. Questions focused on perceptions of IH coverage and housestaff educational experience. RESULTS: We report 1323 responses from 147 institutions (center response rate 74%). Although 96% of respondents stated that the PICU provides "a good educational experience," only 50% of pediatric intensivists and 67% of housestaff feel that housestaff are prepared for independent practice after training in an IH model. Compared with those training in home-call models, respondents currently working in IH models have more favorable perceptions of the effects of IH coverage on housestaff autonomy (P < .0001), supervision (P < .0001), and preparation for independent practice (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric intensivists and housestaff express concern regarding the preparation of housestaff training in a 24/7 IH attending model. An important priority for institutions using or considering a 24/7 IH attending coverage model is the balance between adequate housestaff supervision and autonomy.