Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Intravascular Targeted Temperature Management after Cardiac Arrest in England

• Published in: PharmacoEconomics - Open
• Main Authors: Javanbakht, Mehdi, Mashayekhi, Atefeh, Hemami, Mohsen R., Branagan-Harris, Michael, Keeble, Thomas R., Yaghoubi, Mohsen
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Springer 2022
• Subjects: Arctic
• Online Access: https://arro.anglia.ac.uk/id/eprint/707701/; https://arro.anglia.ac.uk/id/eprint/707701/1/Javanbakht_2022.pdf; https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-022-00333-7

Background: Targeted temperature management (TTM) has been shown to improve neurological outcomes and survival in patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest; however, the cost effectiveness of multiple TTM methods is not well studied. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of intravascular temperature management (IVTM) using Thermogard XP compared with surface cooling methods after cardiac arrest in the England from the perspectives of the UK national health service and Personal Social Services. Methods: We developed a multi-state Markov model that evaluated IVTM (Thermogard XP) compared with surface cooling using two different devices (Blanketrol III and Arctic Sun 5000) over a short-term and lifetime time horizon. Model input parameters were obtained from the literature and local databases. We assumed a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients who required TTM after cardiac arrest per year in the England. The outcomes were costs (in £, year 2019 values) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), discounted at 3.5% annually. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to examine the effect of alternative assumptions and uncertainty in model parameters on the results. Results: The cost-effectiveness analysis determined that Thermogard XP resulted in direct cost savings of £2339 and £2925 (per patient) compared with Blanketrol III and Arctic Sun 5000, respectively, and a gain of 0.98 QALYs over the patient lifetime. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the probability of Thermogard XP being cost saving would be 69.2% and 65.3% versus the Arctic Sun 5000 and Blanketrol III, respectively. Conclusion: Implementation of IVTM using Thermogard XP can lead to cost savings and improved patient quality of life versus surface cooling methods.