Cost-effectiveness analysis of multimodal prognostication in cardiac arrest with EEG monitoring.

OBJECTIVE: To determine cost-effectiveness parameters for EEG monitoring in cardiac arrest prognostication. METHODS: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to estimate the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained by adding continuous EEG monitoring to standard cardiac arrest prognostication using the American Academy of Neurology Practice Parameter (AANPP) decision algorithm: neurologic examination, somatosensory evoked potentials, and neuron-specific enolase. We explored lifetime cost-effectiveness in a closed system that incorporates revenue back into the medical system (return) from payers who survive a cardiac arrest with good outcome and contribute to the health system during the remaining years of life. Good outcome was defined as a Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) score of 1-2 and poor outcome as CPC of 3-5. RESULTS: An improvement in specificity for poor outcome prediction of 4.2% would be sufficient to make continuous EEG monitoring cost-effective (baseline AANPP specificity = 83.9%). In sensitivity analysis, the effect of increased sensitivity on the cost-effectiveness of EEG depends on the utility (u) assigned to a poor outcome. For patients who regard surviving with a poor outcome (CPC 3-4) worse than death (u = -0.34), an increased sensitivity for poor outcome prediction of 13.8% would make AANPP + EEG monitoring cost-effective (baseline AANPP sensitivity = 76.3%). In the closed system, an improvement in sensitivity of 1.8% together with an improvement in specificity of 3% was sufficient to make AANPP + EEG monitoring cost-effective, assuming lifetime return of 50% (USD $70,687). CONCLUSION: Incorporating continuous EEG monitoring into cardiac arrest prognostication is cost-effective if relatively small improvements in sensitivity and specificity are achieved.

Intraoperative neuromonitoring for one-level lumbar discectomies is low yield and cost-ineffective.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative neuromonitoring is a common, well-established modality used in spine surgery to prevent intraoperative neural injury. Neuromonitoring use in lumbar discectomy, however, is based on surgeon preference, without evidence-based data. The purpose of this research was to determine intraoperative utility and overall cost effectiveness of neuromonitoring for lumbar discectomy. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed adult patients who underwent a lumbar discectomy, with at least 1 month of follow-up at a single tertiary care center. Patient age, sex, body mass index (BMI), lumbar level operated, and operative time and cost were collected. Neuromonitoring and operative reports were reviewed for any electromyography (EMG) abnormalities noted intraoperatively, pre- and post-operative motor exam and post-operative pain relief were collected. RESULTS: Ninety-one (47 with and 44 without neuromonitoring) lumbar discectomy cases were reviewed. There was no significant difference between mean age, sex, and BMI between the two groups. There was a significant (p = 0.006) increase in operating room time (174 min; with vs. 144 min; without neuromonitoring). Neuromonitoring was associated with a significant (p = 0.006) overall operative cost ($21,949; with vs. $18,064; without). Of the 47 cases with neuromonitoring; one had abnormal intraoperative EMG activity, which returned to normal by case conclusion. No patient in either group demonstrated new post-operative motor weakness. There was no difference in the number of patients who endorsed post-operative pain relief between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Neuromonitoring for lumbar discectomy confers greater operative time and cost, without any difference in neurological outcome.

Does Continuous Video-EEG in Patients With Altered Consciousness Improve Patient Outcome? Current Evidence and Randomized Controlled Trial Design.

Continuous video-EEG is recommended for patients with altered consciousness; as compared to routine EEG (lasting <30 minutes), it improves seizure detection, but is time- and resource-consuming. Although North American centers increasingly implement continuous video-EEG, most other (including European) hospitals have insufficient resources. Only one study suggested that continuous video-EEG could improve outcome in adults, and recent assessments challenge this view. This article reviews current evidence on the added value for continuous video-EEG in clinical terms and describes a design for a prospective study.In a multicenter randomized clinical trial (NCT03129438), adults with a Glasgow Coma Scale ≤11 will be randomized 1:1 to continuous video-EEG (cEEG) for 30 to 48 hours or 2 routine EEG (rEEG), assessed through standardized American Clinical Neurophysiology Society (ACNS) guidelines. The primary outcome will be mortality at 6 months, assessed blindly. Secondary outcomes will explore functional status at 4 weeks and 6 months, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, infection rates, and hospitalization costs. Using a 2-sided approach with power of 0.8 and a error of 0.05, 2 × 174 patients are needed to detect an absolute survival difference of 14%, suggested by the single available study on the topic.This study should help clarifying whether cEEG has a significant impact on outcome and define its cost effectiveness. If the trial will result positive, it will encourage broader implementation of cEEG with consecutive substantial impact on health care and resource allocations. If not, it may offer a rationale to design a larger trial, and - at least for smaller centers - to avoid widespread implementation of cEEG, rationalizing personnel and device costs.

Patient-centered design criteria for wearable seizure detection devices.

INTRODUCTION: Epilepsy is a common neurological condition. Seizure diary reports and patient- or caregiver-reported seizure counts are often inaccurate and underestimated. Many caregivers express stress and anxiety about the patient with epilepsy having seizures when they are not present. Therefore, a need exists for the ability to recognize and/or detect a seizure in the home setting. However, few studies have inquired on detection device features that are important to patients and their caregivers. METHODS: A survey instrument utilizing a population of patients and caregivers was created to obtain information on the design criteria most desired for patients with epilepsy in regard to wearable devices. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred sixty-eight responses were collected. Respondents thought that sensors for muscle signal (61.4%) and heart rate (58.0%) would be most helpful followed by the O2 sensor (41.4%). There was more interest in these three sensor types than for an accelerometer (25.5%). There was very little interest in a microphone (8.9%), galvanic skin response sensor (8.0%), or a barometer (4.9%). Based on a rating scale of 1-5 with 5 being the most important, respondents felt that "detecting all seizures" (4.73) is the most important device feature followed by "text/email alerts" (4.53), "comfort" (4.46), and "battery life" (4.43) as an equally important group of features. Respondents felt that "not knowing device is for seizures" (2.60) and "multiple uses" (2.57) were equally the least important device features. Average ratings differed significantly across age groups for the following features: button, multiuse, not knowing device is for seizures, alarm, style, and text ability. The p-values were all<0.002. Eighty-two point five percent of respondents [95% confidence interval: 80.0%, 84.7%] were willing to pay more than $100 for a wearable seizure detection device, and 42.8% of respondents [95% confidence interval: 39.8%, 45.9%] were willing to pay more than $200. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey results demonstrated that patients and caregivers have design features that are important to them in regard to a wearable seizure detection device. Overall, the ability to detect all seizures rated highest among respondents which continues to be an unmet need in the community with epilepsy in regard to seizure detection. Additional uses for a wearable were not as important. Based on our results, it is important that an alert (via test and/or email) for events be a portion of the system. A reasonable price point appears to be around $200 to $300. An accelerometer was less important to those surveyed when compared with the use of heart rate, oxygen saturation, or muscle twitches/signals. As further products become developed for use in other health arenas, it will be important to consider patient and caregiver desires in order to meet the need and address the gap in devices that currently exist.

Management of sleep apnea without high pretest probability or with comorbidities by three nights of portable sleep monitoring.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) diagnosis using simplified methods such as portable sleep monitoring (PM) is only recommended in patients with a high pretest probability. The aim is to determine the diagnostic efficacy, consequent therapeutic decision-making, and costs of OSA diagnosis using polysomnography (PSG) versus three consecutive studies of PM in patients with mild to moderate suspicion of sleep apnea or with comorbidity that can mask OSA symptoms. DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomized, blinded, crossover study of 3 nights of PM (3N-PM) versus PSG. The diagnostic efficacy was evaluated with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Therapeutic decisions to assess concordance between the two different approaches were performed by sleep physicians and respiratory physicians (staff and residents) using agreement level and kappa coefficient. The costs of each diagnostic strategy were considered. PATIENTS AND RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were selected. Epworth Sleepiness Scale was 10.1 (5.3) points. Bland-Altman plot for apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) showed good agreement. ROC curves showed the best area under the curve in patients with PSG AHI ≥ 5 [0.955 (confidence interval = 0.862-0.993)]. For a PSG AHI ≥ 5, a PM AHI of 5 would effectively exclude and confirm OSA diagnosis. For a PSG AHI ≥ 15, a PM AHI ≥ 22 would confirm and PM AHI < 7 would exclude OSA. The best agreement of therapeutic decisions was achieved by the sleep medicine specialists (81.8%). The best cost-diagnostic efficacy was obtained by the 3N-PM. CONCLUSIONS: Three consecutive nights of portable monitoring at home evaluated by a qualified sleep specialist is useful for the management of patients without high pretest probability of obstructive sleep apnea or with comorbidities. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, registration number: NCT01820156. CITATION: Guerrero A, Embid C, Isetta V, Farre R, Duran-Cantolla J, Parra O, Barbé F, Montserrat JM, Masa JF. Management of sleep apnea without high pretest probability or with comorbidities by three nights of portable sleep monitoring.