A preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis of lung protective ventilation with extra corporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO(2)R) in the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)

BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation (MV) is the cornerstone in the management of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Recent research suggests that decreasing the intensity of MV using lung protective ventilation (LPV) with lower tidal volume (Vt) and driving pressure (∆P) could improve survival. Extra-corporal CO(2) removal (ECCO(2)R) precisely enables LPV by allowing lower Vt, ∆P and mechanical power while maintaining PaCO(2) within a physiologic range. This study evaluates the potential cost-effectiveness of ECCO(2)R-enabled LPV in France. METHODS: We modelled the distribution over time of ventilated ARDS patients across 3 health-states (alive & ventilated, alive & weaned from ventilation, dead). We compared the outcomes of 3 strategies: MV (no ECCO(2)R), LPV (ECCO(2)R when PaCO(2) > 55 mmHg) and Ultra-LPV (ECCO(2)R for all). Patients characteristics, ventilation settings, survival and lengths of stay were derived from a large ARDS epidemiology study. Survival benefits associated with lower ∆P were taken from the analysis of more than 3000 patients enrolled in 9 randomized trials. Health outcomes were expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were computed with both Day 60 cost and Lifetime cost. RESULTS: Both LPV and ULPV as enabled by ECCO2R provided favorable results at Day 60 as compared to MV. Survival rates were increased with the protective strategies, notably with ULPV that provided even more manifest benefits as compared to MV. LPV and ULPV produced +0.162 and + 0.627 incremental QALYs as compared to MV, respectively. LPV and ULPV costs were augmented because of their survival benefits. Nonetheless, ICERs of LPV and ULPV vs. MV were all well below the €50,000 threshold. ULPV also presented with favorable ICERs as compared to LPV (i.e. less than €25,000/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: ECCO(2)R-enabled LPV strategies might provide cost-effective survival benefit. Additional data from interventional and observational studies are needed to support this preliminary model-based analysis.