The effect of pulmonary artery catheter use on costs and long-term outcomes of acute lung injury

Gilles Clermont, Lan Kong, Lisa A Weissfeld, Judith R Lave, Gordon D Rubenfeld, Mark S Roberts, Alfred F Connors Jr, Gordon R Bernard, B Taylor Thompson, Arthur P Wheeler, Derek C Angus, NHLBI ARDS Clinical Trials Network, Gilles Clermont, Lan Kong, Lisa A Weissfeld, Judith R Lave, Gordon D Rubenfeld, Mark S Roberts, Alfred F Connors Jr, Gordon R Bernard, B Taylor Thompson, Arthur P Wheeler, Derek C Angus, NHLBI ARDS Clinical Trials Network

Abstract

Background: The pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) remains widely used in acute lung injury (ALI) despite known complications and little evidence of improved short-term mortality. Concurrent with NHLBI ARDS Clinical Trials Network Fluid and Catheters Treatment Trial (FACTT), we conducted a prospectively-defined comparison of healthcare costs and long-term outcomes for care with a PAC vs. central venous catheter (CVC). We explored if use of the PAC in ALI is justified by a beneficial cost-effectiveness profile.

Methods: We obtained detailed bills for the initial hospitalization. We interviewed survivors using the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 questionnaire at 2, 6, 9 and 12 m to determine quality of life (QOL) and post-discharge resource use. Outcomes beyond 12 m were estimated from federal databases. Incremental costs and outcomes were generated using MonteCarlo simulation.

Results: Of 1001 subjects enrolled in FACTT, 774 (86%) were eligible for long-term follow-up and 655 (85%) consented. Hospital costs were similar for the PAC and CVC groups ($96.8k vs. $89.2k, p = 0.38). Post-discharge to 12 m costs were higher for PAC subjects ($61.1k vs. 45.4k, p = 0.03). One-year mortality and QOL among survivors were similar in PAC and CVC groups (mortality: 35.6% vs. 31.9%, p = 0.33; QOL [scale: 0-1]: 0.61 vs. 0.66, p = 0.49). MonteCarlo simulation showed PAC use had a 75.2% probability of being more expensive and less effective (mean cost increase of $14.4k and mean loss of 0.3 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)) and a 94.2% probability of being higher than the $100k/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold.

Conclusion: PAC use increased costs with no patient benefit and thus appears unjustified for routine use in ALI.

Trial registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT00234767.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1. Quorum chart of the EA-PAC…
Figure 1. Quorum chart of the EA-PAC cohort.
Figure 2. Survival by treatment arm.
Figure 2. Survival by treatment arm.
Trends seen in the FACTT trial persist to one year of follow-up. Although patients with CVC have higher cumulative survival, the difference is not significant (p = 0.33, log-rank).
Figure 3. Utility by treatment arm.
Figure 3. Utility by treatment arm.
Median Health-related quality-of-life, measured by the Health Utilities Index, is uniformly low in the EA-PAC cohort, although the inter-quartile range is wide and individual values spread the entire 0–1 interval. Utilities are lowest at 90 days and improved by 9 months. Subjects assigned to the PAC were no different than those assigned to the CVC.
Figure 4. Post-discharge resource use.
Figure 4. Post-discharge resource use.
Overall post-discharge costs were significantly higher in patients assigned to the PAC. There was a trend in most categories of costs favoring CVC, but only post-discharge rehabilitation costs were significantly different. Of note, the difference was most apparent at the 9 and 12 month follow-up point (data not shown).
Figure 5. Cost-effectiveness of the Pulmonary Artery…
Figure 5. Cost-effectiveness of the Pulmonary Artery Catheter.
The mean estimate of incremental costs and effects suggest that the PAC is both more expensive and less effective (panel A). The 95% confidence ellipse only marginally dips below the 50 k/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold with the vast majority of trials agreeing with the mean estimate that the PAC is an inferior strategy. The corresponding cost-effectiveness acceptability curve conveys the probability of the PAC to be cost-effective at various willingness-to-pay thresholds (Panel B, x-axis). Even if willingness-to-pay was unlimited, there is only a 20.8% probability of the PAC to be cost effective (Panel B, dotted line). The PAC displays a better cost-effectiveness profile in subjects treated with a conservative fluid strategy (panel C) than those receiving a liberal strategy. A similar trend is seen in subjects where the study protocol was instituted early after enrolment (panel D). Yet, for both subgroups, there was a high probability for the PAC to be an ineffective strategy.

References

    1. Wheeler AP, Bernard GR, Thompson BT, Schoenfeld D, Wiedemann HP, et al. Pulmonary-artery versus central venous catheter to guide treatment of acute lung injury. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:2213–2224.
    1. Harvey S, Harrison DA, Singer M, Ashcroft J, Jones CM, et al. Assessment of the clinical effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheters in management of patients in intensive care (PAC-Man): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;366:472–477.
    1. Richard C, Warszawski J, Anguel N, Deye N, Combes A, et al. Early use of the pulmonary artery catheter and outcomes in patients with shock and acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2003;290:2713–2720.
    1. Sandham JD, Hull RD, Brant RF, Knox L, Pineo GF, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of the use of pulmonary-artery catheters in high-risk surgical patients. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:5–14.
    1. Wiener RS, Welch HG. Trends in the use of the pulmonary artery catheter in the United States, 1993-2004. JAMA. 2007;298:423–429.
    1. Herridge MS, Cheung AM, Tansey CM, Matte-Martyn A, Diaz-Granados N, et al. One-year outcomes in survivors of the acute respiratory distress syndrome. NEJM. 2003;348:683–693.
    1. Cheung AM, Tansey CM, Tomlinson G, Diaz-Granados N, Matte A, et al. Two-year outcomes, health care use, and costs of survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006;174:538–544.
    1. Angus DC, Clermont G, Linde-Zwirble WT, Musthafa AA, Dremsizov TT, et al. Crit Care Med [October 23 Epub ahead of print]; 2006. Healthcare costs and long-term outcomes after acute respiratory distress syndrome: A phase III trial of inhaled nitric oxide*.
    1. Herridge MS, Angus DC. Acute lung injury--affecting many lives. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1736–1738.
    1. Angus DC, Rubenfeld GD, Roberts MS, Curtis JR, Connors AF, et al. Understanding costs and cost-effectiveness in critical care: report from the second American Thoracic Society workshop on outcomes research. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;165:540–550.
    1. Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, Torrance GW. Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health Utilities Index. PharmacoEconomics. 1995;7:490–502.
    1. Rothman ML, Hedrick SC, Bulcroft KA, Hickam DH, Rubenstein LZ. The validity of proxy-generated scores as measures of patient health status. Med Care. 1991;29:115–124.
    1. Russell LB, Gold MR, Siegel JE, Daniels N, Weinstein MC. The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 1996;276:1172–1177.
    1. Angus DC, Musthafa AA, Clermont G, Griffin MF, Linde-Zwirble WT, et al. Quality-adjusted survival in the first year after the acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2001;163:1389–1394.
    1. Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB for the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 1996;276:1253–1258.
    1. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PX. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Can Med Assoc J. 1992;146:473–481.
    1. Rubenfeld GD, Herridge MS. Epidemiology and outcomes of acute lung injury. Chest. 2007;131:554–562.
    1. Harvey S, Harrison DA, Singer M, Ashcroft J, Jones CM, et al. Assessment of the clinical effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheters in management of patients in intensive care (PAC-Man): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;366:472–477.
    1. Hindorff LA, Rice KM, Lange LA, Diehr P, Halder I, et al. Common variants in the CRP gene in relation to longevity and cause-specific mortality in older adults: the Cardiovascular Health Study. Atherosclerosis. 2008;197:922–930.
    1. Yende S, D'angelo G, Kellum JA, Weissfeld L, Fine J, et al. Inflammatory markers at hospital discharge predict subsequent mortality after pneumonia and sepsis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008;177:1242–1247.
    1. Reade MC, Yende S, D'angelo G, Kong L, Kellum JA, et al. Differences in immune response may explain lower survival among older men with pneumonia. Crit Care Med. 2009;37:1655–1662.
    1. Skolarus LE, Sanchez BN, Morgenstern LB, Garcia NM, Smith MA, et al. Stroke; 2010. Validity of Proxies and Correction for Proxy Use When Evaluating Social Determinants of Health in Stroke Patients.
    1. Braithwaite RS, Meltzer DO, King JT, Jr, Leslie D, Roberts MS. What does the value of modern medicine say about the $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year decision rule? Med Care. 2008;46:349–356.
    1. Angus D, Linde-Zwirble WT, Clermont G, Ball DE, Basson BR, et al. Cost-effectiveness of drotrecogin alfa (activated) in the treatment of severe sepsis. Crit Care Med. 2003;31:1–11.

Source: PubMed

3
구독하다