Nguyen Christina-Le, Tse Wai Chung, Carney Thomas M, Carrandi Alayna, Fagery Mussab, Higgins Alisa M
Monash University, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Monash University, School of Medicine, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Crit Care Explor. 2025 Jul 16;7(7):e1288. doi: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000001288. eCollection 2025 Jul 1.
Intensive care is a critical but resource-intensive component of healthcare. Health economic evaluations, such as cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), offer valuable insights for decision-making by weighing the costs and benefits of various healthcare interventions. We aimed to identify and summarize the existing health economic evaluations within intensive care and identify areas for future research.
We searched six academic databases to identify full health economic evaluations of ICU interventions published between 1993 and 2023. Databases included: Ovid (MEDLINE, Embase, and evidence based medicine (EBM) Reviews [Health Technology Assessments and National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database]), EBSCO (CINAHL and EconLit), and Web of Science.
Health economic evaluations of interventions for adult patients in the ICU were included. Economic evaluations include CEAs, cost-utility, cost-benefit, and cost-minimization analyses, while pediatric, animal and weaning center studies were excluded.
Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Study quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist.
We identified 219 relevant studies published between 1993 and 2023, with a significant rise in publications over the last decade. Most studies (97%) had good to excellent reporting quality. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from dominant (more effective and less expensive) to $753,874 per life saved. ICERs for both cost per quality-adjusted life-years and cost per life-year gained ranged from dominant to dominated (more costly and less effective). Three studies (1%) were published in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and 58% of studies were modeling studies.
Despite the importance of economic evidence in healthcare decision-making, there is a relative scarcity of cost-effectiveness studies in intensive care compared with other medical fields. Available economic evaluations in intensive care are characterized by significant heterogeneity. The wide range of ICERs for life saved, life-years gained, and quality-adjusted life-years reflects the diversity of ICU patients, interventions, and evaluation methods. Future research in LMICs and increasing trial-based research is recommended.
重症监护是医疗保健中的关键组成部分,但资源消耗量大。卫生经济评估,如成本效益分析(CEA),通过权衡各种医疗干预措施的成本和效益,为决策提供有价值的见解。我们旨在识别和总结重症监护领域现有的卫生经济评估,并确定未来研究的领域。
我们检索了六个学术数据库,以识别1993年至2023年期间发表的关于重症监护病房(ICU)干预措施的完整卫生经济评估。数据库包括:Ovid(MEDLINE、Embase和循证医学(EBM)综述[卫生技术评估和国家卫生服务(NHS)经济评估数据库])、EBSCO(CINAHL和EconLit)以及科学网。
纳入了针对ICU成年患者干预措施的卫生经济评估。经济评估包括CEA、成本效用分析、成本效益分析和成本最小化分析,而儿科、动物和撤机中心研究被排除在外。
由两名独立的评审人员提取数据。使用《卫生经济评估报告标准合并清单》评估研究质量。
我们识别出1993年至2023年期间发表的219项相关研究,在过去十年中发表数量显著增加。大多数研究(97%)的报告质量良好至优秀。增量成本效益比(ICER)范围从占优(更有效且成本更低)到每挽救一条生命753,874美元。每质量调整生命年成本和每获得一个生命年成本的ICER范围从占优到劣势(成本更高且效果更差)。三项研究(1%)在低收入和中等收入国家(LMICs)发表,58%的研究为建模研究。
尽管经济证据在医疗保健决策中很重要,但与其他医学领域相比重症监护领域的成本效益研究相对较少。现有的重症监护经济评估具有显著的异质性。挽救生命、获得生命年和质量调整生命年的ICER范围广泛,反映了ICU患者、干预措施和评估方法的多样性。建议在LMICs开展未来研究并增加基于试验的研究。