Hamel M B, Phillips R S, Davis R B, Desbiens N, Connors A F, Teno J M, Wenger N, Lynn J, Wu A W, Fulkerson W, Tsevat J
Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA 02215, USA.
Ann Intern Med. 1997 Aug 1;127(3):195-202. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-127-3-199708010-00003.
Renal failure requiring dialysis in the setting of hospitalization for serious illness is a poor prognostic sign, and dialysis and aggressive care are sometimes withheld.
To evaluate the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of initiating dialysis and continuing aggressive care for seriously ill hospitalized patients.
Prospective cohort study and cost-effectiveness analysis.
Five geographically diverse teaching hospitals.
490 patients (median age, 61 years; 58% women) enrolled in the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT) in whom dialysis was initiated.
Survival, functional status, quality of life, and health care costs. Life expectancy was estimated by extrapolating survival data (up to 4.4 years of follow-up) using a declining exponential function. Utilities (quality-of-life weights) were estimated by using time-tradeoff questions. Costs were based on data from SUPPORT and published Medicare data.
Median duration of survival was 32 days, and only 27% of patients were alive after 5 months. Survivors reported a median of one dependency in activities of daily living, and 62% rated their quality of life as "good" or better. Overall, the estimated cost per quality-adjusted life-year saved by initiating dialysis and continuing aggressive care rather than withholding dialysis and allowing death to occur was $128,200. For the 103 patients in the worst prognostic category, the estimated cost per quality-adjusted life-year was $274,100; for the 94 patients in the best prognostic category, the cost per quality-adjusted life-year was $61,900.
For the few patients who survived, clinical outcomes were fairly good. With the exception of patients with the best prognoses, however, the cost-effectiveness of initiating dialysis and continuing aggressive care far exceeded $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, a commonly cited threshold for cost-effective care.
因重病住院而需要透析的肾衰竭是预后不良的征兆,有时会停止透析和积极治疗。
评估为重症住院患者开始透析并持续进行积极治疗的临床结局和成本效益。
前瞻性队列研究和成本效益分析。
五家地理位置不同的教学医院。
490名患者(中位年龄61岁;58%为女性)参与了了解治疗结局和风险的预后及偏好研究(SUPPORT),并开始进行透析。
生存率、功能状态、生活质量和医疗保健成本。通过使用递减指数函数外推生存数据(长达4.4年的随访)来估计预期寿命。通过时间权衡问题来估计效用(生活质量权重)。成本基于SUPPORT的数据和已公布的医疗保险数据。
中位生存时间为32天,5个月后仅有27%的患者存活。存活者报告日常生活活动中位依赖程度为1项,62%的患者将其生活质量评为“良好”或更好。总体而言,开始透析并持续进行积极治疗而非停止透析并任其死亡,每挽救一个质量调整生命年的估计成本为128,200美元。对于预后最差的103名患者,每质量调整生命年的估计成本为274,100美元;对于预后最好的94名患者,每质量调整生命年的成本为61,900美元。
对于少数存活的患者,临床结局相当不错。然而,除了预后最好的患者外,开始透析并持续进行积极治疗的成本效益远远超过每质量调整生命年50,000美元,这是一个普遍引用的成本效益护理阈值。