Cost-Effectiveness Studies in the ICU: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES

Cost-effectiveness analyses are increasingly used to aid decisions about resource allocation in healthcare; this practice is slow to translate into critical care. We sought to identify and summarize original cost-effectiveness studies presenting cost per quality-adjusted life year, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, or cost per life-year ratios for treatments used in ICUs.

DESIGN

We conducted a systematic search of the English-language literature for cost-effectiveness analyses published from 1993 to 2018 in critical care. Study quality was assessed using the Drummond checklist.

SETTING

Critical care units.

PATIENTS OR SUBJECTS

Critical care patients.

INTERVENTIONS

Identified studies with cost-effectiveness analyses.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We identified 97 studies published through 2018 with 156 cost-effectiveness ratios. Reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from -$119,635 (hypothetical cohort of patients requiring either intermittent or continuous renal replacement therapy) to $876,539 (data from an acute renal failure study in which continuous renal replacement therapy was the most expensive therapy). Many studies reported favorable cost-effectiveness profiles (i.e., below $50,000 per life year or quality-adjusted life year). However, several therapies have since been proven harmful. Over 2 decades, relatively few cost-effectiveness studies in critical care have been published (average 4.6 studies per year). There has been a more recent trend toward using hypothetical cohorts and modeling scenarios without proven clinical data (2014-2018: 19/33 [58%]).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite critical care being a significant healthcare cost burden there remains a paucity of studies in the literature evaluating its cost effectiveness.