PubMed · 10142940
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
E Zablocki. 1995. Using information at the cost-quality interface.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10142940/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
PURPOSE: Many patients with acute respiratory failure die despite prolonged and costly treatment. Our objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of providing rather than withholding mechanical ventilation and intensive care for patients with acute respiratory failure due to pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We studied 1,005 patients enrolled in a five-center study of seriously ill patients (the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments [SUPPORT]) with acute respiratory failure (pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome and an Acute Physiology Score > or =10) who required ventilator support. We estimated life expectancy based on long-term follow-up of SUPPORT patients. Utilities were estimated using time-tradeoff questions. Costs (in 1998 dollars) were based on hospital fiscal data and Medicare data. RESULTS: Of the 963 patients who received ventilator support, 48% survived for at least 6 months. At 6 months, survivors reported a median of 1 dependence in activities of daily living, and 72% rated their quality of life as good, very good, or excellent. Among the 42 patients in whom ventilator support was withheld, the median survival was 3 days. Among patients whose estimated probability of surviving at least 2 months from the time of ventilator support ("prognostic estimate") was 70% or more, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved by providing rather than withholding ventilator support and aggressive care was $29,000. For medium-risk patients (prognostic estimate 51% to 70%), the incremental cost-effectiveness was $44,000 per QALY, and for high-risk patients (prognostic estimate < or =50%), it was $110,000 per QALY. When assumptions were varied from 50% to 200% of baseline estimates, the results ranged from $19,000 to $48,000 for low-risk patients, from $29,000 to $76, 000 for medium-risk patients, and from $67,000 to $200,000 for high-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: Ventilator support and intensive care for acute respiratory failure due to pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome are relatively cost-effective for patients with >50% probability of surviving 2 months. However, for patients with an expected 2-month survival < or =50%, the cost per QALY is more than threefold greater at >$100,000.
CONTEXT: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is widely used in the belief that it may reduce the need for intubation and mechanical ventilation in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory insufficiency. OBJECTIVE: To compare the physiologic effects and the clinical efficacy of CPAP vs standard oxygen therapy in patients with acute hypoxemic, nonhypercapnic respiratory insufficiency. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Randomized, concealed, and unblinded trial of 123 consecutive adult patients who were admitted to 6 intensive care units between September 1997 and January 1999 with a PaO(2)/FIO(2) ratio of 300 mm Hg or less due to bilateral pulmonary edema (n = 102 with acute lung injury and n = 21 with cardiac disease). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive oxygen therapy alone (n = 61) or oxygen therapy plus CPAP (n = 62). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Improvement in PaO(2)/FIO(2) ratio, rate of endotracheal intubation at any time during the study, adverse events, length of hospital stay, mortality, and duration of ventilatory assistance, compared between the CPAP and standard treatment groups. RESULTS: Among the CPAP vs standard therapy groups, respectively, causes of respiratory failure (pneumonia, 54% and 55%), presence of cardiac disease (33% and 35%), severity at admission, and hypoxemia (median [5th-95th percentile] PaO(2)/FIO(2) ratio, 140 [59-288] mm Hg vs 148 [62-283] mm Hg; P =.43) were similarly distributed. After 1 hour of treatment, subjective responses to treatment (P<.001) and median (5th-95th percentile) PaO(2)/FIO(2) ratios were greater with CPAP (203 [45-431] mm Hg vs 151 [73-482] mm Hg; P =.02). No further difference in respiratory indices was observed between the groups. Treatment with CPAP failed to reduce the endotracheal intubation rate (21 [34%] vs 24 [39%] in the standard therapy group; P =.53), hospital mortality (19 [31%] vs 18 [30%]; P =.89), or median (5th-95th percentile) intensive care unit length of stay (6.5 [1-57] days vs 6.0 [1-36] days; P =.43). A higher number of adverse events occurred with CPAP treatment (18 vs 6; P =.01). CONCLUSION: In this study, despite early physiologic improvement, CPAP neither reduced the need for intubation nor improved outcomes in patients with acute hypoxemic, nonhypercapnic respiratory insufficiency primarily due to acute lung injury. JAMA. 2000;284:2352-2360.
CONTEXT: Invasive life-support techniques are a major risk factor for nosocomial infection. Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) can be used to avoid endotracheal intubation and may reduce morbidity among patients in intensive care units (ICUs). OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the use of NIV is associated with decreased risk of nosocomial infections and improved survival in everyday clinical practice among patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or hypercapnic cardiogenic pulmonary edema (CPE). DESIGN AND SETTING: Matched case-control study conducted in the medical ICU of a French university hospital from January 1996 through March 1998. PATIENTS: Fifty patients with acute exacerbation of COPD or severe CPE who were treated with NIV for at least 2 hours and 50 patients treated with mechanical ventilation between 1993 and 1998 (controls), matched on diagnosis, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Logistic Organ Dysfunction score, age, and no contraindication to NIV. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of nosocomial infections, antibiotic use, lengths of ventilatory support and of ICU stay, ICU mortality, compared between cases and controls. RESULTS: Rates of nosocomial infections and of nosocomial pneumonia were significantly lower in patients who received NIV than those treated with mechanical ventilation (18% vs 60% and 8% vs 22%; P<.001 and P =.04, respectively). Similarly, the daily risk of acquiring an infection (19 vs 39 episodes per 1000 patient-days; P =.05), proportion of patients receiving antibiotics for nosocomial infection (8% vs 26%; P =.01), mean (SD) duration of ventilation (6 [6] vs 10 [12] days; P =.01), mean (SD) length of ICU stay (9 [7] vs 15 [14] days; P =.02), and crude mortality (4% vs 26%; P =.002) were all lower among patients who received NIV than those treated with mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: Use of NIV instead of mechanical ventilation is associated with a lower risk of nosocomial infections, less antibiotic use, shorter length of ICU stay, and lower mortality. JAMA. 2000;284:2361-2367.