Critical Care Explorations (Jun 2024)

What Is the Potential Value of a Randomized Trial of Different Thresholds to Initiate Invasive Ventilation? A Health Economic Analysis

  • Christopher J. Yarnell, MD,
  • Kali Barrett, MD, MSc,
  • Anna Heath, PhD,
  • Margaret Herridge, MD, MSc,
  • Robert A. Fowler, MD, MSc,
  • Lillian Sung, MD, PhD,
  • David M. Naimark, MSc, MD,
  • George Tomlinson, PhD

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000001098
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 6, no. 6
p. e1098

Abstract

Read online

OBJECTIVES:. To estimate the expected value of undertaking a future randomized controlled trial of thresholds used to initiate invasive ventilation compared with usual care in hypoxemic respiratory failure. PERSPECTIVE:. Publicly funded healthcare payer. SETTING:. Critical care units capable of providing invasive ventilation and unconstrained by resource limitations during usual (nonpandemic) practice. METHODS:. We performed a model-based cost-utility estimation with individual-level simulation and value-of-information analysis focused on adults, admitted to critical care, receiving noninvasive oxygen. In the primary scenario, we compared hypothetical threshold A to usual care, where threshold A resulted in increased use of invasive ventilation and improved survival compared with usual care. In the secondary scenario, we compared hypothetical threshold B to usual care, where threshold B resulted in decreased use of invasive ventilation and similar survival compared with usual care. We assumed a willingness-to-pay of 100,000 Canadian dollars (CADs) per quality-adjusted life year. RESULTS:. In the primary scenario, threshold A was cost-effective compared with usual care due to improved hospital survival (78.1% vs. 75.1%), despite more use of invasive ventilation (62% vs. 30%) and higher lifetime costs (86,900 vs. 75,500 CAD). In the secondary scenario, threshold B was cost-effective compared with usual care due to similar survival (74.5% vs. 74.6%) with less use of invasive ventilation (20.2% vs. 27.6%) and lower lifetime costs (71,700 vs. 74,700 CAD). Value-of-information analysis showed that the expected value to Canadian society over 10 years of a 400-person randomized trial comparing a threshold for invasive ventilation to usual care in hypoxemic respiratory failure was 1.35 billion CAD or more in both scenarios. CONCLUSIONS:. It would be highly valuable to society to identify thresholds that, in comparison to usual care, either increase survival or reduce invasive ventilation without reducing survival.