Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, the Department of Anesthesiology, the Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Epidemiology, the Department of Pharmacotherapy, and the Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Dec;130(6):1347-1355. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002359.
To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of common obstetric transfusion preparedness strategies to prevent emergency-release transfusions.
A decision analytic model compared five commonly used transfusion preparedness strategies in a general obstetric population. Patients were classified as being at low, moderate, or high risk for transfusion. The most prepared strategy used a policy of universal type and screen plus crossmatch for high-risk patients. Other strategies used universal type and screen only, universal hold clot plus crossmatch for high-risk patients, selective type and screen only in high-risk patients, or no routine admission testing. Strategies were compared using transfusion-related cost and probability estimates derived from patient-level data and from the published literature. The primary outcome was incremental cost per emergency-release transfusion prevented. A strategy was considered cost-effective if the cost was less than $1,500 per emergency-release transfusion avoided as determined by expert consensus. Emergency-release transfusion included universal donor or type-specific packed red cells that are not crossmatched to the recipient. Along with the base-case analyses, we also conducted one- and two-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses using second-order Monte Carlo simulation. Variability in the willingness-to-pay threshold was explored in a cost-effectiveness acceptability analysis. The model was conducted from a hospital perspective.
In the base-case analysis, the strategy of universal type and screen with crossmatch for high-risk patients yielded an incremental cost of $115,541 per emergency-release transfusion prevented compared with a strategy of universal hold clot. The universal hold clot strategy yielded a cost of $2,878 per emergency-release transfusion prevented compared with a strategy of no routine admission testing. Strategies using universal type and screen were cost-effective in zero of the 10,000 simulations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $1,500 per emergency-release transfusion prevented. Even at willingness to pay greater than $10,000 to prevent an emergency-release transfusion, universal type and screen strategies were not cost-effective.
Transfusion preparedness with universal type and screen is not cost-effective in a general obstetric population across a wide range of assumptions and variable ranges.
评估常见产科输血准备策略预防紧急释放输血的成本效益。
决策分析模型比较了普通产科人群中五种常用的输血准备策略。患者分为低、中、高输血风险。最有准备的策略是对高危患者采用通用型和筛检加配型的策略。其他策略包括仅采用通用型和筛检、仅对高危患者采用通用型加凝血块保留加配型、仅对高危患者采用选择性的仅筛选型和仅采用无常规入院检测。使用从患者水平数据和已发表文献中得出的输血相关成本和概率估计,比较了这些策略。主要结果是每预防一次紧急释放输血的增量成本。如果避免一次紧急释放输血的成本低于专家共识确定的 1500 美元,则认为该策略具有成本效益。紧急释放输血包括未与受者配型的通用供体或特定类型的浓缩红细胞。除了基础案例分析,我们还进行了单因素和双因素敏感性分析以及使用二阶蒙特卡罗模拟的概率敏感性分析。在成本效益接受性分析中,还探讨了支付意愿阈值的变异性。该模型从医院角度进行了分析。
在基础案例分析中,与通用型加凝血块保留加配型策略相比,高危患者采用通用型和筛检加配型策略的增量成本为每预防一次紧急释放输血 115541 美元。与无常规入院检测策略相比,通用型加凝血块保留加配型策略的成本为每预防一次紧急释放输血 2878 美元。在支付意愿阈值为 1500 美元/次预防紧急释放输血的情况下,使用通用型和筛检的策略在 10000 次模拟中的 0 次模拟中具有成本效益。即使在愿意支付超过 10000 美元来预防一次紧急释放输血的情况下,通用型和筛检策略也不具有成本效益。
在广泛的假设和变量范围内,通用型和筛检的输血准备在普通产科人群中不具有成本效益。