Journal of critical care · 2025
An economic model for different anticoagulation strategies in continuous renal replacement therapy.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ethgen Olivier, Zarbock Alexander, Echeverri Jorge, Harenski Kai, Tolwani Ashita
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of regional citrate anticoagulation (RCA) or systemic heparin anticoagulation (SHA) during continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) in critically ill patients.
METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to calculate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio between RCA and SHA from a US healthcare payer perspective. Key differentiator was the risk of bleeding derived from the RCA and SHA groups in the RICH trial. Base case didn't consider the potential impact of bleeding on length of stay (LOS) or mortality. Three scenarios were considered: 1-impact of bleeding on LOS; 2-impact of bleeding on mortality; and 3-impact of bleeding on both LOS and mortality.
RESULTS: Base case: RCA was associated with an incremental cost of +$577 compared with SHA. Scenario 1: RCA resulted in cost savings of -$311. Scenario 2: RCA incurred incremental costs of +$614 for +0.076 incremental QALYs (+$8131/QALY). Scenario 3: RCA appeared to be a dominant strategy over SHA. Sensitivity analyses showed the results were robust to parameter uncertainties.
CONCLUSION: RCA is an economically attractive alternative to SHA, especially when bleeding leads to longer hospital stays. Observational research is warranted to document the impact of bleeding on LOS to confirm the economic value of RCA over SHA.
METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to calculate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio between RCA and SHA from a US healthcare payer perspective. Key differentiator was the risk of bleeding derived from the RCA and SHA groups in the RICH trial. Base case didn't consider the potential impact of bleeding on length of stay (LOS) or mortality. Three scenarios were considered: 1-impact of bleeding on LOS; 2-impact of bleeding on mortality; and 3-impact of bleeding on both LOS and mortality.
RESULTS: Base case: RCA was associated with an incremental cost of +$577 compared with SHA. Scenario 1: RCA resulted in cost savings of -$311. Scenario 2: RCA incurred incremental costs of +$614 for +0.076 incremental QALYs (+$8131/QALY). Scenario 3: RCA appeared to be a dominant strategy over SHA. Sensitivity analyses showed the results were robust to parameter uncertainties.
CONCLUSION: RCA is an economically attractive alternative to SHA, especially when bleeding leads to longer hospital stays. Observational research is warranted to document the impact of bleeding on LOS to confirm the economic value of RCA over SHA.