Key result
Intravascular temperature management adds ~1 QALY and lowers lifetime costs versus surface cooling.
Why the study?
Targeted temperature management improves neurological outcomes and survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, but the cost-effectiveness of different methods remains uncertain.
Does Intravascular Temperature Management (IVTM) improve cost-effectiveness and quality-adjusted life-years compared to surface cooling methods in patients needing targeted temperature management after cardiac arrest?
Does Intravascular Temperature Management (IVTM) improve cost-effectiveness and quality-adjusted life-years compared to surface cooling methods in patients needing targeted temperature management after cardiac arrest?
Intravascular temperature management using Thermogard XP is cost-saving and improves quality-adjusted life-years compared to surface cooling methods for patients after cardiac arrest.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May inform TTM device selection for potential cost and QALY benefits post-arrest; leaves open prospective validation before practice change.
Background Although there is recognized that Targeted Temperature Management (TTM) can improve neurological outcomes and survival in patients resuscitated from out of hospital cardiac arrest, the cost-effectiveness of multiple methods of TTM is still uncertain. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Intravascular Temperature Management (IVTM) through Thermogard XP in targeted temperature management compared to surface cooling method after cardiac arrest in England. Methods We developed a multi-state Markov model that compared intravascular temperature management through Thermogard XP and the surface cooling method through two different devices including Blanketrol III and Arctic Sun 5000, over a short-term and lifetime horizon. Model input parameters were obtained from the literature and local databases. We assumed hypothetical cohort of 1,000 patients who need TTM after cardiac arrest per year in England. The outcomes were costs (in 2019 £) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), discounted at 3.5% annually. Deterministic and probabilistic analyses were undertaken to examine the effect of alternative assumptions and uncertainty in model parameters on the results. Results In a simulated cohort of 1,000 patients who need TTM, the Thermogard XP resulted in direct cost savings of £2,339 and £2,925 (per patient) when compared with Blanketrol III and Arctic Sun 5000 respectively, and a gain of 0.98 QALYs over the patient lifetime. Total cost saving considering cohort of 1,000 patients is £2,339,479 and £ 2,925,109 when using IVTM through Thermogard XP compared with Blanketrol III and Arctic Sun 5000 respectively in life-time horizon. Results were robust against alternative assumptions, changes in values of input parameters, and alternative time horizons. Conclusion Implementation of intravascular temperature management using Thermogard XP can lead to cost-savings and improvement in patients’ quality of life versus surface cooling methods.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yaghoubi et al. (2021) studied Cardiac arrest requiring targeted temperature management (n=1,000). Intravascular Temperature Management (Thermogard XP) vs. Surface cooling methods (Blanketrol III and Arctic Sun 5000) was evaluated on Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (MD 0.98). Intravascular temperature management using Thermogard XP resulted in a gain of 0.98 quality-adjusted life-years and direct cost savings of £2,339 to £2,925 per patient compared to surface cooling methods over a lifetime horizon.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: