Coreva Scientific & Co (Saunders, Davis), KÖnigswinter, Germany; University of Western Ontario (Bosma); London Health Sciences Centre (Bosma), University Hospital, London, Ont.
CMAJ Open. 2022 Feb 15;10(1):E126-E135. doi: 10.9778/cmajo.20210078. Print 2022 Jan-Mar.
Mechanical ventilation is an important component of patient critical care, but it adds expense to an already high-cost setting. This study evaluates the cost-utility of 2 modes of ventilation: proportional-assist ventilation with load-adjustable gain factors (PAV+ mode) versus pressure-support ventilation (PSV).
We adapted a published Markov model to the Canadian hospital-payer perspective with a 1-year time horizon. The patient population modelled includes all patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation who have completed the acute phase of ventilatory support and have entered the recovery phase. Clinical and cost inputs were informed by a structured literature review, with the comparative effectiveness of PAV+ mode estimated via pragmatic meta-analysis. Primary outcomes of interest were costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the (incremental) cost per QALY for patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Results were reported in 2017 Canadian dollars. We conducted probabilistic and scenario analyses to assess model uncertainty.
Over 1 year, PSV had costs of $50 951 and accrued 0.25 QALYs. Use of PAV+ mode was associated with care costs of $43 309 and 0.29 QALYs. Compared to PSV, PAV+ mode was considered likely to be cost-effective, having lower costs (-$7642) and increased QALYs (+0.04) after 1 year. In cost-effectiveness acceptability analysis, 100% of simulations would be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per QALY gained.
Use of PAV+ mode is expected to benefit patient care in the intensive care unit (ICU) and be a cost-effective alternative to PSV in the Canadian setting. Canadian hospital payers may therefore consider how best to optimally deliver mechanical ventilation in the ICU as they expand ICU capacity.
机械通气是患者重症监护的重要组成部分,但它增加了本已高昂的成本。本研究评估了两种通气模式的成本效益:带可调节增益因素的比例辅助通气(PAV+模式)与压力支持通气(PSV)。
我们采用了一种已发表的马尔可夫模型,从加拿大医院支付者的角度出发,时间跨度为 1 年。模型中包括所有接受有创机械通气的患者,这些患者已经完成了通气支持的急性期,进入了恢复期。临床和成本数据来源于结构化文献综述,通过实用荟萃分析来评估 PAV+模式的相对有效性。感兴趣的主要结果是接受机械通气患者的成本、质量调整生命年(QALY)和每 QALY 的增量成本。结果以 2017 年加元报告。我们进行了概率和情景分析,以评估模型的不确定性。
在 1 年内,PSV 的费用为 50951 加元,获得 0.25 个 QALY。使用 PAV+模式的护理费用为 43309 加元,获得 0.29 个 QALY。与 PSV 相比,PAV+模式在 1 年后具有更低的成本(-7642 加元)和更高的 QALY(0.04),被认为更具成本效益。在成本效益可接受性分析中,100%的模拟结果在 50000 加元/QALY 的意愿支付阈值下都是具有成本效益的。
在加拿大,使用 PAV+模式有望改善重症监护病房(ICU)的患者护理,并成为 PSV 的一种具有成本效益的替代方案。因此,加拿大医院支付者可能会考虑如何在扩大 ICU 容量的同时,以最佳方式在 ICU 中提供机械通气。