Cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A multi-centre prospective cohort study.

AIM:Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is an evolving resuscitative method for refractory cardiopulmonary arrests. However, considering the substantial healthcare costs and resources involved, there is an urgent need for a full economic evaluation. We therefore assessed the cost-effectiveness of ECPR for refractory ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VF/pVT). METHODS:We developed a decision model to estimate lifetime costs and outcomes for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with VF/pVT who received either ECPR or conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) was used as the main outcome measure. This model was a combination of a decision tree model for the acute phase based on a prospective observational study (SAVE-J study), together with a Markov model for long-term follow-up periods extrapolated from published data. To evaluate the robustness of this model, we conducted a comprehensive deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). RESULTS:ECPR was cost-effective, with an incremental cost of ¥3,521,189 (Є30,227), an incremental effectiveness of 1.34 QALY, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ¥2,619,692 (Є22,489) per QALY gained. DSA revealed that the present model was most sensitive to probability of Cerebral Performance Category 1 after ECPR (¥2,153,977/QALY to ¥3,186,475/QALY), patient age (¥2,170,112/QALY to ¥3,334,252/QALY), and long-term medical cost for modified Rankin Scale 0 (¥2,280,352/QALY to ¥2,855,330/QALY). PSA indicated ECPR to be cost-effective and below the willingness-to-pay threshold of ¥5,000,000 with an 86.7 % possibility. CONCLUSIONS:ECPR was an economically acceptable resuscitative strategy, and the results of the present study were robust even when considering the uncertainty of all parameters.