Upvote Story 12

Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Proportional-Assist Ventilation Plus vs. Pressure Support Ventilation in the ICU in Two Countries

Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Proportional-Assist Ventilation Plus vs. Pressure Support Ventilation in the ICU in Two Countries

The published reductions in asynchrony and length of stay in the ICU with proportional assist ventilation (PAV ventilation by Medtronic) led to shorter time on ventilation, and reduced incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and tracheostomy in this decision analytic model. Increased patient survival with PAV resulted in annual healthcare costs being accumulated over a longer period. This made it most likely that PAV is cost-saving in the short term and cost-effective over the long term. For payers, PAV+ is likely a cost-effective option for mechanical ventilation when compared with PSV. For hospitals, PAV is expected to reduce costs and resource use. This analysis considers a cohort of patients receiving mechanical ventilation in the ICU and their progression through the care pathway to hospital discharge. Using clinical outcome data from randomized, controlled and large, prospective studies, an in-silico model of the care pathway was developed.

CriticalCare.news
June 7, 2018

Related Books

Leave Your Comment