A system-wide extracorporeal membrane oxygenation quality collaborative improves patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use in adult patient populations has grown rapidly with wide variation in practices and outcomes. We evaluated the impact on patient outcomes, resource use, and costs of an initiative to coordinate and standardize best practices across ECMO programs within a large integrated health care system. METHODS: The ECMO Collaborative Project brought clinicians and service-line leaders from 4 programs within a single health care system together with operational subject matter experts tasked with developing and implementing standardized guidelines, order sets, and an internal database to support an automated quarterly report card. Patient outcomes, resource use, and financial measures were compared for the 16 months before (January 2017 to April 2018; "precollaborative," n = 185) versus the 14 months after (November 2018 to December 2019, "postcollaborative," n = 243) a 6-month implementation and blanking period. Subset analyses were performed for venoarterial ECMO, venovenous ECMO, and extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. RESULTS: Survival to discharge/transfer increased significantly (in-hospital mortality hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.58-0.99) for the postcollaborative versus the precollaborative period (107/185, 57.8% vs 113/243, 46.5%, P = .03), predominantly due to improvement among patients receiving venoarterial ECMO (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.41-0.91). The percentage of patients successfully weaned from ECMO increased from 58.9% (109/185) to 70% (170/243), P = .02. Complication rates decreased by 40% (incidence rate ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.49-0.72). No significant changes were observed in ECMO duration, intensive care unit or hospital length of stay, or cost-per-case; payment-per-case and contribution-margin-per-case both decreased significantly. CONCLUSIONS: The ECMO Collaborative Project improved survival to discharge/transfer, weaning rates and complications, without additional costs, through coordination and standardization across ECMO programs within a health care system.

Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: results of the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trial (Cohort A).

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk. BACKGROUND: TAVR is an alternative to AVR for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk. METHODS: We performed a formal economic analysis based on cost, quality of life, and survival data collected in the PARTNER A (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trial in which patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk were randomized to TAVR or AVR. Cumulative 12-month costs (assessed from a U.S. societal perspective) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were compared separately for the transfemoral (TF) and transapical (TA) cohorts. RESULTS: Although 12-month costs and QALYs were similar for TAVR and AVR in the overall population, there were important differences when results were stratified by access site. In the TF cohort, total 12-month costs were slightly lower with TAVR and QALYs were slightly higher such that TF-TAVR was economically dominant compared with AVR in the base case and economically attractive (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/QALY) in 70.9% of bootstrap replicates. In the TA cohort, 12-month costs remained substantially higher with TAVR, whereas QALYs tended to be lower such that TA-TAVR was economically dominated by AVR in the base case and economically attractive in only 7.1% of replicates. CONCLUSIONS: In the PARTNER trial, TAVR was an economically attractive strategy compared with AVR for patients suitable for TF access. Future studies are necessary to determine whether improved experience and outcomes with TA-TAVR can improve its cost-effectiveness relative to AVR.