figshare
Browse
ierp_a_1411804_sm0395.docx (21.37 kB)

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the use of high-flow oxygen through nasal cannula in intensive care units in NHS England

Download (21.37 kB)
journal contribution
posted on 2017-12-05, 08:04 authored by Emily Eaton Turner, Michelle Jenks

Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of Nasal High Flow (NHF) in the intensive care unit (ICU) compared with standard oxygen or non-invasive ventilation (NIV) from a UK NHS perspective.

Methods: Three cost-effectiveness models were developed to reflect scenarios of NHF use: first-line therapy (pre-intubation model); post-extubation in low-risk, and high-risk patients. All models used randomized control trial data on the incidence of intubation/re-intubation, events leading to intubation/re-intubation, mortality and complications. NHS reference costs were primarily used. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results: When used as first-line therapy, Optiflow™ NHF gives an estimated cost-saving of £469 per patient compared with standard oxygen and £611 versus NIV. NHF cost-savings for high severity sub-group were £727 versus standard oxygen, and £1,011 versus NIV.

For low-risk post-intubation patients, NHF generates estimated cost-saving of £156 versus standard oxygen. NHF decreases the number of re-intubations required in these scenarios. Results were robust in most sensitivity analyses.

For high-risk post-intubation patients, NHF cost-savings were £104 versus NIV. NHF results in a non-significant increase in re-intubations required. However, reduction in respiratory failure offsets this.

Conclusions: For patients in ICU who are at risk of intubation or re-intubation, NHF cannula is likely to be cost-saving.

Funding

Financial support for this manuscript was provided by Fisher and Paykel Healthcare Limited.

History

Usage metrics

    Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research

    Licence

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC