An evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheters in patient management in intensive care: a systematic review and a randomised controlled trial
To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of managing critically ill patients in adult, general intensive care with or without pulmonary artery catheters (PACs). An open, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation (cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analysis). The sett...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) England), 2006-08, Vol.10 (29), p.iii-iv |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of managing critically ill patients in adult, general intensive care with or without pulmonary artery catheters (PACs).
An open, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation (cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analysis).
The setting was general (mixed medical/surgical) intensive care units (ICUs) in the UK admitting adults.
Adult patients in participating ICUs deemed by the responsible treating clinician to require management with a PAC.
These were insertion of a PAC and subsequent clinical management, at the discretion of the responsible treating clinicians, using data derived from the PAC. The control group were managed without a PAC but with the option of using alternative cardiac output monitoring devices.
The main outcome measure was hospital mortality. Secondary outcome measures were length of stay in the ICU, length of stay in an acute hospital and organ-days of support in the ICU. For the economic evaluation, the main outcome measure was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the secondary outcome measure was hospital mortality.
Sixty-five ICUs in the UK participated. Of these, 43 (66%) used alternative cardiac output monitoring devices in control group patients. A total of 1263 patients were identified as being eligible for the trial. Of these, 1041 (82.4%) were randomised and allocated to management with (n = 519) or without (n = 522) a PAC. There were no losses to follow-up. However, 27 patients (13 in the PAC group and 14 in the control group) were withdrawn from the trial because either the patient withdrew consent on recovering mental competency or the relatives withdrew agreement following randomisation. Data on 1014 patients were included in the analysis. Participants in the two groups had similar baseline characteristics. There was no difference in hospital mortality for patients managed with (68.4%) or without (65.7%) a PAC. The adjusted hazard ratio (PAC versus no PAC) was 1.09 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.27]. There was no difference in the median length of stay in ICU, the median length of stay in an acute hospital or mean organ-days of support in ICU between the two groups. The economic evaluation found that the expected cost per QALY gained from the withdrawal of PAC was 2985 pounds. The expected cost per life gained from the withdrawal of PAC was 22,038 pounds.
Clinical management of critically ill patients with a PAC, as currently practised in the UK |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1366-5278 2046-4924 1366-5278 |
DOI: | 10.3310/hta10290 |