Efficacy and economic assessment of conventional ventilatory support versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure (CESAR): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory failure in adults causes high mortality despite improvements in ventilation techniques and other treatments (eg, steroids, prone positioning, bronchoscopy, and inhaled nitric oxide). We aimed to delineate the safety, clinical efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) compared with conventional ventilation support. METHODS: In this UK-based multicentre trial, we used an independent central randomisation service to randomly assign 180 adults in a 1:1 ratio to receive continued conventional management or referral to consideration for treatment by ECMO. Eligible patients were aged 18-65 years and had severe (Murray score >3.0 or pH <7.20) but potentially reversible respiratory failure. Exclusion criteria were: high pressure (>30 cm H(2)O of peak inspiratory pressure) or high FiO(2) (>0.8) ventilation for more than 7 days; intracranial bleeding; any other contraindication to limited heparinisation; or any contraindication to continuation of active treatment. The primary outcome was death or severe disability at 6 months after randomisation or before discharge from hospital. Primary analysis was by intention to treat. Only researchers who did the 6-month follow-up were masked to treatment assignment. Data about resource use and economic outcomes (quality-adjusted life-years) were collected. Studies of the key cost generating events were undertaken, and we did analyses of cost-utility at 6 months after randomisation and modelled lifetime cost-utility. This study is registered, number ISRCTN47279827. FINDINGS: 766 patients were screened; 180 were enrolled and randomly allocated to consideration for treatment by ECMO (n=90 patients) or to receive conventional management (n=90). 68 (75%) patients actually received ECMO; 63% (57/90) of patients allocated to consideration for treatment by ECMO survived to 6 months without disability compared with 47% (41/87) of those allocated to conventional management (relative risk 0.69; 95% CI 0.05-0.97, p=0.03). Referral to consideration for treatment by ECMO led to a gain of 0.03 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at 6-month follow-up [corrected]. A lifetime model predicted the cost per QALY of ECMO to be pound19 252 (95% CI 7622-59 200) at a discount rate of 3.5%. INTERPRETATION: We recommend transferring of adult patients with severe but potentially reversible respiratory failure, whose Murray score exceeds 3.0 or who have a pH of less than 7.20 on optimum conventional management, to a centre with an ECMO-based management protocol to significantly improve survival without severe disability. This strategy is also likely to be cost effective in settings with similar services to those in the UK. FUNDING: UK NHS Health Technology Assessment, English National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group, Scottish Department of Health, and Welsh Department of Health.

Methods of data collection and analysis for the economic evaluation alongside a national, multi-centre trial in the UK: conventional ventilation or ECMO for Severe Adult Respiratory Failure (CESAR).

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) is a technology used in treatment of patients with severe but potentially reversible respiratory failure. A multi-centre randomised controlled trial (CESAR) was funded in the UK to compare care including ECMO with conventional intensive care management. The protocol and funding for the CESAR trial included plans for economic data collection and analysis. Given the high cost of treatment, ECMO is considered an expensive technology for many funding systems. However, conventional treatment for severe respiratory failure is also one of the more costly forms of care in any health system. METHODS/DESIGN: The objectives of the economic evaluation are to compare the costs of a policy of referral for ECMO with those of conventional treatment; to assess cost-effectiveness and the cost-utility at 6 months follow-up; and to assess the cost-utility over a predicted lifetime. Resources used by patients in the trial are identified. Resource use data are collected from clinical report forms and through follow up interviews with patients. Unit costs of hospital intensive care resources are based on parallel research on cost functions in UK NHS intensive care units. Other unit costs are based on published NHS tariffs. Cost effectiveness analysis uses the outcome: survival without severe disability. Cost utility analysis is based on quality adjusted life years gained based on the Euroqol EQ-5D at 6 months. Sensitivity analysis is planned to vary assumptions about transport costs and method of costing intensive care. Uncertainty will also be expressed in analysis of individual patient data. Probabilities of cost effectiveness given different funding thresholds will be estimated. DISCUSSION: In our view it is important to record our methods in detail and present them before publication of the results of the trial so that a record of detail not normally found in the final trial reports can be made available in the public domain. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: The CESAR trial registration number is ISRCTN47279827.

Visiting adult patients in intensive care: the importance of relatives' travel and time costs.

UNLABELLED: Families of critically ill patients consistently rate visiting and being near their relative as very important. However, the costs incurred by families whilst visiting have received little attention. This study investigated the personal costs to informal caregivers (families, relatives and friends) visiting critically ill patients in an intensive care unit (ICU). The purpose of the study was (1) to test the feasibility of collecting data from informal caregivers visiting critically ill relatives and (2) to estimate the personal costs incurred by them. Data were collected by self-completed questionnaires over a 2-week period on out-of-pocket expenses and time foregone. RESULTS: One hundred and seven informal caregivers were invited to participate in the study. Fifty-four completed the questionnaire (response 50%). Forty-eight percent of respondents were male and 52% female. Fifty-nine percent of participants were in paid employment, and of these 16% lost wages as a result of the visit. The mean cost of time foregone was 46.21 pounds sterlings /visit (66.92 US dollars) and mean out-of-pocket expenses 29.30 pounds sterlings (42.43 US dollars). CONCLUSION: It is feasible to collect data on expenses and time foregone from informal caregivers visiting the ICU. The main out-of-pocket expense was that related to travel. More empirical work is needed across different settings to obtain more generalisable estimates of out-of-pocket expenses and time foregone.

Genetic transformation of cotyledon explants of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp) using Agrobacterium tumefaciens.

Mature de-embryonated cotyledons with intact proximal end of Vigna unguiculata were cultured on B5 basal medium containing varying concentrations of BAP. Thirty-six percent of the explants produced shoots on B5 medium supplemented with 8× 10(-6) M BAP. Cotyledon explants were pre-incubated for 24 h, inoculated with A. tumefaciens pUCD2614 carrying pUCD2340, co-cultivated for 48 h and transferred to hygromycin-B (25 mg/l) containing shoot induction medium. Approximately 15-19% of the explants produced shoots on the selection medium. The elongated shoots were subsequently rooted on B5 basal medium containing hygromycin. The transgenic plants were later established in pots. The presence of hpt gene in the transgenic plants was confirmed by Southern blot hybridization.