Acute cardiac care & resuscitation
Cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation vs. conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a pre-planned, trial-based economic evaluation
Authors' conclusion
Hospital-based ECPR in refractory OHCA has a low probability of being cost-effective in a trial-based economic evaluation.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA)
- Participants
- 132 patients
- Comparison
- Hospital-based extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) vs conventional CPR
- ECPRn = 70
- Conventional CPR (CCPR)n = 62reference
- Primary endpoint
- Healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life year (QALYs) (EQ-5D-5L) and ICER
- Follow-up
- 1 year
Methodological detailspre-planned, trial-based economic evaluation of the INCEPTION randomised trial, multicentre, pragmatic, 10 cardiosurgical centres in the Netherlands
- Pre-planned, trial-based economic evaluation of the INCEPTION randomised trial
- Multicentre
- Pragmatic
- 10 cardiosurgical centres in the Netherlands
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Costs, QALYs and ICER
Difference in mean costs
5109 €
95% CI −7264 to 15 764
ECPR
ICER
121 643 € per additional QALY gained
ECPR
- Probability ECPR cost-effective at willingness-to-pay threshold of €80.000
- 36%
Further findings
Sensitivity analyses (per-protocol, as-treated)
- Increasing ICER and lower probabilities of acceptance in per-protocol and as-treated groups
Original publication
Cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation vs. conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a pre-planned, trial-based economic evaluation. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. Published 23 April 2024. doi:10.
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it