Key result
Goal-directed perfusion during cardiopulmonary bypass resulted in a cost-saving of $3,137 (95% CI 1,122-4,951) compared to traditional perfusion, primarily due to reduced hospital stay.
Why the study?
Does goal directed perfusion compared to traditional perfusion reduce costs and improve clinical outcomes in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass?
Does goal directed perfusion compared to traditional perfusion reduce costs and improve clinical outcomes in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass?
Effect estimate: $3,137 (95% CI 1,122-4,951)
Goal-directed perfusion during cardiopulmonary bypass is cost-saving compared to traditional perfusion, driven primarily by reduced hospital length of stay and lower AKI incidence.
May reduce costs in cardiopulmonary bypass; leaves open randomized confirmation of outcomes before practice change.
OBJECTIVES: High oxygen delivery (DO2) during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is associated with better renal outcomein cardiac surgery. Traditional perfusion (TP) techniques, targeted on body surface area and CPB temperature, achieveshigh DO2 in about 50% of the cases while a goal directed perfusion (GDP) approach can lead to more than 90% of casesachieving high DO2 with a consequent reduction in Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) rate of about 40%. Aim of this study isto perform an economic evaluation of GDP strategy with respect to TP in US. METHODS: A Discrete Event Simulationmodel was developed to compare TP and GDP strategy in patients undergoing CPB. The patient’s pathways from operationto discharging from hospital was simulated: AKI incidence, in-hospital mortality, hospital length of stay, transfusions werecorrelated to probability to achieve high DO2 target using published correlations. National perspective was adopted to calculate costs associated to each event while GDP strategy was exploited the introduction of Sorin Heartlink (HL) Card/GDPCard and Sorin Connect (electronic data management system). RESULTS: GDP strategy saved more than 3 days in hospitaland 11% of AKI episodes. The cost-saving is $ 3,137 (95% CI: 1,122-4,951); the cost of HL Card/GDP Card+Connect ($180, 95% CI: 113-249) is more than offset by savings in hospital stay that result the main driver in cost ($ 3,222, 95% CI:1,235-4,950). Deterministic sensitivity analysis shows that the total savings are mainly influenced by nadir haematocritduring CPB and hospital LOS/cost per day both in ICU and in ward. CONCLUSIONS: GDP seems to improve significantlythe main outcomes related to CPB surgery, when compared to TP techniques. Additional costs due to perform GDP strategyhave no impact on the total cost since completely offset by the savings in hospital cost.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Povero et al. (2015) studied Cardiopulmonary bypass. Goal directed perfusion (GDP) vs. Traditional perfusion (TP) was evaluated on Cost-saving ($3,137, 95% CI 1,122-4,951). Goal-directed perfusion during cardiopulmonary bypass resulted in a cost-saving of $3,137 (95% CI 1,122-4,951) compared to traditional perfusion, primarily due to reduced hospital stay.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: