Actual Cost of Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the actual cost and drivers of the cost of an extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (E-CPR) care cycle. PERSPECTIVE: A time-driven activity-based costing study conducted from a healthcare provider perspective. SETTING: A quaternary care ICU providing around-the-clock E-CPR service for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) in Australia. METHODS: The E-CPR care cycle was defined as the time from initiating E-CPR to hospital discharge or death of the patient. Detailed process maps with discrete steps and probabilistic decision nodes accounting for the complex trajectories of E-CPR patients were developed. Data about clinical and nonclinical resources and timing of activities was collected multiple times for each process . Total direct costs were calculated using the time estimates and unit costs per resource for all clinical and nonclinical resources. The total direct costs were combined with indirect costs to obtain the total cost of E-CPR. RESULTS: From 10 E-CPR care cycles observed during the study period, a minimum of 3 observations were obtained per process. The E-CPR care cycle's mean (95% CI) cost was $75,014 ($66,209-83,222). Initiation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and ECMO management constituted 18% of costs. The ICU management (35%) and surgical costs (20%) were the primary cost determinants. IHCA had a higher mean (95% CI) cost than OHCA ($87,940 [75,372-100,570] vs. 62,595 [53,994-71,890], p < 0.01), mainly because of the increased survival and ICU length of stay of patients with IHCA. The mean cost for each E-CPR survivor was $129,503 ($112,422-147,224). CONCLUSIONS: Significant costs are associated with E-CPR for refractory cardiac arrest. The cost of E-CPR for IHCA was higher compared with the cost of E-CPR for OHCA. The major determinants of the E-CPR costs were ICU and surgical costs. These data can inform the cost-effectiveness analysis of E-CPR in the future.

A study comparing the cost-effectiveness of conventional and drug-eluting transarterial chemoembolisation (cTACE and DEB-TACE) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in an Australian public hospital.

INTRODUCTION: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality and transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) is an established technique to treat patients with intermediate-stage HCC. The aim of this study was to generate accurate costing data on cTACE and DEB-TACE in an Australian setting and assess whether one of the procedures offers favourable cost-effectiveness. METHODS: Costing study using data from all TACE procedures performed at a single centre between January 2018 and December 2022. Data were included from all direct and indirect costs including operative costs, wages, overheads, ward costs, transfusion, pathology, pharmacy and ward support. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by dividing local costs by existing high-quality data on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: 64 TACE treatments were performed on 44 patients. Mean age was 66.5 years and 91% were male. Overall median total cost per patient for the entire TACE treatment regime was AUD$7380 (range AUD$3719-$20,258). However, 39% of patients received more than one treatment, and the median cost per individual treatment was AUD$5270 (range AUD$3533-$15,818). The difference in median cost between cTACE (AUD$4978) and DEB-TACE (AUD$9202) was significant, P < 0.001. In calculating cost-effectiveness, each cTACE treatment cost AUD$2489 per QALY gained, while each DEB-TACE cost AUD$3834 per QALY gained. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for DEB-TACE over cTACE was AUD$10,560 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: Both cTACE and DEB-TACE are low-cost treatments in Australia. However, DEB-TACE offers a solution with an ICER of AUD$10,560 per QALY gained which is below the Australian government willingness to pay threshold and thus is a more cost-effective treatment.

A cost outcome study of varicocoele embolisation and future pregnancy in an Australian public hospital setting.

INTRODUCTION: Varicocoele is commonly encountered in males with infertility. Studies have shown that varicocoele repair (surgery or embolisation) can improve the rate of subsequent pregnancy. In Australia, there have been no studies assessing the cost of varicocoele embolisation and current practice is based on international data. This study aimed to assess the cost of varicocoele embolisation and estimate the treatment cost per pregnancy. METHODS: Retrospective cost-outcome study of patients treated by embolisation between January 2018 and 2023. A bottom-up approach was used to calculate procedure costs whereas a top-down approach was used to calculate costs for all other patient services, including direct and indirect costs. To calculate cost per pregnancy, costs were adjusted according to existing published data on the rate of pregnancy after embolisation. RESULTS: Costing data from 18 patients were included, of median age 33.5 years (range 26-60) and median varicocoele grade 2.5 (range 1-3). All patients had unilateral treatment, most commonly via right internal jugular (16 patients, 89%) and using a 0.035″ system (17 patients, 94%). The median cost for the entire treatment including procedural, non-procedural, ward and peri-procedural costs was AUD$2208.10 (USD$1405 or EUR€1314), range AUD$1691-7051. The projected cost to the healthcare system per pregnancy was AUD$5387 (USD$3429 or EUR€3207). CONCLUSION: Total varicocoele embolisation cost and the cost per-pregnancy were lower than for both embolisation and surgical repair in existing international studies. Patients undergoing varicocoele treatment should have the option to access an interventional radiologist to realise the benefits of this low-cost pinhole procedure.

The cost to perform splenic artery embolisation following blunt trauma: Analysis from a level 1 Australian trauma centre.

INTRODUCTION: Splenic artery embolisation (SAE) has been shown to be an effective treatment for haemodynamically stable patients with high-grade blunt splenic injury. However, there are no local estimates of how much treatment costs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost of providing SAE to patients in the setting of blunt abdominal trauma at an Australian level 1 trauma centre. METHODS: This was a single-centre retrospective review of 10 patients who underwent splenic embolisation from December 2017 to December 2018 for the treatment of isolated blunt splenic injury, including cost of procedure and the entire admission. Costs included angiography costs including equipment, machine, staff, and post-procedural costs including pharmacy, general ward costs, orderlies, ward nursing, allied health, and further imaging. RESULTS: During the study period, patients remained an inpatient for a mean of 4.8 days and the rate of splenic salvage was 100%. The mean total cost of splenic embolisation at our centre was AUD$10,523 and median cost AUD$9959.6 (range of $4826-$16,836). The use of a plug as embolic material was associated with increased cost than for coils. Overall cost of patients requiring ICU was mean AUD$11,894 and median AUD$11,435.8. Overall cost for those not requiring ICU was mean AUD$7325 and median AUD$8309.8. CONCLUSION: Splenic embolisation is a low-cost procedure for management of blunt splenic injury. The cost to provide SAE at our centre was much lower than previously modelled data from overseas studies. From a cost perspective, the use of ICU for monitoring after the procedure significantly increased cost and necessity may be considered on a case-by-case basis. Further research is advised to directly compare the cost of SAE and splenectomy in an Australian setting.