RESUMO
Background: A randomized clinical trial (HiFlo-COVID-19 Trial) showed that among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with high-flow oxygen therapy (HFOT) significantly reduced the need for invasive mechanical ventilation support and time for clinical recovery compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT). However, the cost of this strategy is unknown. Objective: We examined total cost of HFOT treatment compared with COT in real-world setting. Methods: We conducted a post-trial-based cost analysis from the perspective of a managed competition healthcare system, using actual records of billed costs. Cost categories include general ward, intensive care unit, procedures, imaging, laboratories, medications, supplies, and others. Results: A total of 188 participants (mean age 60, 33% female) were included. Average costs (and standard deviation) in the HFOT group were USD $7992 (7394) and in the COT group USD $ 10,190 (9402). Differences, however, did not reach statistical significance (P=0.093). However, resource use was always less costly for the HNFO group, with an overall percentage decrease of 27%. Two categories make up 72% of all savings: medications (41%) and intensive care unit (31%). Conclusion: For patients in ICU with severe COVID-19 the cost of treatment with HFOT as compared to COT is likely to be cost-saving due to less use of medications and length of stay in ICU.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Dynamic and efficient resuscitation strategies are now being implemented in severely injured hemodynamically unstable (HU) patients as blood products become readily and more immediately available in the trauma room. Our ability to maintain aggressive resuscitation schemes in HU patients allows us to complete diagnostic imaging studies before rushing patients to the operating room (OR). As the criteria for performing computed tomography (CT) scans in HU patients continue to evolve, we decided to compare the outcomes of immediate CT versus direct admission to the OR and/or angio suite in a retrospective study at a government-designated regional Level I trauma center in Cali, Colombia. METHODS: During a 2-year period (2012-2013), blunt and penetrating trauma patients (≥ 15 years) with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) greater than 15 who met criteria of hemodynamic instability (systolic blood pressure [SBP] <100 mm Hg and/or heart rate >100 beats/min and/or ≥ 4 U of packed red blood cells transfused in the trauma bay) were included. Isolated head trauma and patients who experienced a prehospital cardiac arrest were excluded. The main study outcome was mortality. RESULTS: We reviewed 171 patients. CT scans were performed in 80 HU patients (47%) immediately upon arrival (CT group); the remaining 91 patients (53%) went directly to the OR (63 laparotomies, 20 thoracotomies) and/or 8 (9%) to the angio suite (OA group). Of the CT group, 43 (54%) were managed nonoperatively, 37 (46%) underwent surgery (15 laparotomies, 3 thoracotomies), and 2 (5%) underwent angiography (CT OA subgroup). None of the mortalities in the CT group occurred in the CT suite or during their intrahospital transfers. CONCLUSION: There was no difference in mortality between the CT and OA groups in HU patients. CT scan was attainable in 47% of HU patients and avoided surgery in 54% of the cases. Furthermore, CT scan was helpful in deciding definitive/specific surgical management in 46% scanned HU patients who necessitated surgery after CT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy/care management study, level IV.
