Cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation vs. conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a pre-planned, trial-based economic evaluation.

AIMS: When out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) becomes refractory, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is a potential option to restore circulation and improve the patient's outcome. However, ECPR requires specific materials and highly skilled personnel, and it is unclear whether increased survival and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) justify these costs. METHODS AND RESULTS: This cost-effectiveness study was part of the INCEPTION study, a multi-centre, pragmatic randomized trial comparing hospital-based ECPR to conventional CPR (CCPR) in patients with refractory OHCA in 10 cardiosurgical centres in the Netherlands. We analysed healthcare costs in the first year and measured HRQOL using the EQ-5D-5L at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), cost-effectiveness planes, and acceptability curves were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were performed for per-protocol and as-treated subgroups as well as imputed productivity loss in deceased patients. In total, 132 patients were enrolled: 62 in the CCPR and 70 in the ECPR group. The difference in mean costs after 1 year was €5109 (95% confidence interval -7264 to 15 764). Mean quality-adjusted life year (QALY) after 1 year was 0.15 in the ECPR group and 0.11 in the CCPR group, resulting in an ICER of €121 643 per additional QALY gained. The acceptability curve shows that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80.000, the probability of ECPR being cost-effective compared with CCPR is 36%. Sensitivity analysis showed increasing ICER in the per-protocol and as-treated groups and lower probabilities of acceptance. CONCLUSION: Hospital-based ECPR in refractory OHCA has a low probability of being cost-effective in a trial-based economic evaluation.

Cost Analysis From a Randomized Comparison of Immediate Versus Delayed Angiography After Cardiac Arrest.

Background In patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without ST-segment elevation, immediate coronary angiography did not improve clinical outcomes when compared with delayed angiography in the COACT (Coronary Angiography After Cardiac Arrest) trial. Whether 1 of the 2 strategies has benefits in terms of health care resource use and costs is currently unknown. We assess the health care resource use and costs in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Methods and Results A total of 538 patients were randomly assigned to a strategy of either immediate or delayed coronary angiography. Detailed health care resource use and cost-prices were collected from the initial hospital episode. A generalized linear model and a gamma distribution were performed. Generic quality of life was measured with the RAND-36 and collected at 12-month follow-up. Overall total mean costs were similar between both groups (EUR 33 575±19 612 versus EUR 33 880±21 044; P=0.86). Generalized linear model: (ß, 0.991; 95% CI, 0.894-1.099; P=0.86). Mean procedural costs (coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass graft) were higher in the immediate angiography group (EUR 4384±3447 versus EUR 3028±4220; P<0.001). Costs concerning intensive care unit and ward stay did not show any significant difference. The RAND-36 questionnaire did not differ between both groups. Conclusions The mean total costs between patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest randomly assigned to an immediate angiography or a delayed invasive strategy were similar during the initial hospital stay. With respect to the higher invasive procedure costs in the immediate group, a strategy awaiting neurological recovery followed by coronary angiography and planned revascularization may be considered. Registration URL: https://trialregister.nl; Unique identifier: NL4857.