Hemoadsorption Using CytoSorb® in Patients with Infective Endocarditis: A German-Based Budget Impact Analysis.

A considerable number of infective endocarditis (IE) patients require cardiac surgery with an increased risk for postoperative sepsis. Intraoperative hemoadsorption may diminish the risk of postoperative hyperinflammation with potential economic implications for intensive care unit (ICU) occupation. The present study aimed to theoretically investigate the budget impact of a reduced length of ICU stay in IE patients treated with intraoperative hemoadsorption in the German healthcare system. Data on ICU occupation were extrapolated from a retrospective study on IE patients treated with hemoadsorption. An Excel-based budget impact model was developed to simulate the patient course over the ICU stay. A base-case scenario without therapy reimbursement and a scenario with full therapy reimbursement were explored. The annual eligible German IE patient population was derived from official German Diagnostic-Related Group (DRG) volume data. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis and multivariate analysis were performed to evaluate the uncertainty over the model results. The use of intraoperative hemoadsorption resulted in EUR 2298 being saved per patient in the base-case scenario without therapy reimbursement. The savings increased to EUR 3804 per patient in the case of full device-specific reimbursement. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of savings, with a probability of savings of 87% and 99% in the base-case and full reimbursement scenario, respectively. Intraoperative hemoadsorption in IE patients might have relevant economic benefits related to reduced ICU stays, resulting in improved resource use. Further evaluations in larger prospective cohorts are warranted.

[Mortality in sepsis and septic shock in Germany. Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis]. / Sterblichkeit bei Sepsis und septischem Schock in Deutschland. Ergebnisse eines systematischen Reviews mit Metaanalyse.

BACKGROUND: The reported mortality for sepsis and septic shock varies between 15% and 59% in international comparison. For Germany, the number of studies is limited. Previous estimations of mortality in Germany are outdated or based on claims data analyses. Various authors discuss whether lacking quality initiatives and treatment standards in Germany could cause higher mortality for sepsis. This contrasts with the internationally well-recognized performance of the German intensive care infrastructure during the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to estimate 30-day and 90-day mortality of patients with sepsis and patients with septic shock in Germany and to compare the mortality with that of other industrialized regions (Europe, North America). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic literature search included interventional and observational studies published between 2009 and 2020 in PubMed and the Cochrane Library that analyzed adult patients with sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock in Europe and North America. Studies with less than 20 patients were excluded. The 30-day and 90-day mortality for sepsis and septic shock were pooled separately for studies conducted in Germany, Europe (excluding Germany) and North America in a meta-analysis using a random effects model. Mortality over time was analyzed in a linear regression model. RESULTS: Overall, 134 studies were included. Of these, 15 studies were identified for the estimation of mortality in Germany, covering 10,434 patients, the number of patients per study ranged from 28 to 4183 patients. The 30-day mortality for sepsis was 26.50% (95% confidence interval, CI: 19.86-33.15%) in Germany, 23.85% (95% CI: 20.49-27.21%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 19.58% (95% CI: 14.03-25.14%) in North America. The 30-day mortality for septic shock was 30.48% (95% CI: 29.30-31.67%) in Germany, 34.57% (95% CI: 33.51-35.64%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 33.69% (95% CI: 31.51-35.86%) in North America. The 90-day mortality for septic shock was 38.78% (95% CI: 32.70-44.86%) in Germany, 41.90% (95% CI: 38.88-44.91%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 34.41% (95% CI: 25.66-43.16%) in North America. A comparable decreasing trend in sepsis 30-day mortality was observed in all considered regions since 2009. CONCLUSION: Our analysis does not support the notion that mortality related to sepsis and septic shock in Germany is higher in international comparison. A higher mortality would not be obvious either, since intensive care, for example also during the COVID-19 pandemic, is regarded as exemplary in Germany and the structural quality, such as the number of intensive care beds per 100,000 inhabitants, is high in international comparison. Nevertheless, deficits could also exist outside intensive care medicine. A comparison of international individual studies should take greater account of the structure of healthcare systems, the severity of disease and the limitations resulting from the data sources used.

Mortality in sepsis and septic shock in Europe, North America and Australia between 2009 and 2019- results from a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis and septic shock remain drivers for mortality in critically ill patients. The heterogeneity of the syndrome hinders the generation of reproducible numbers on mortality risks. Consequently, mortality rates range from 15 to 56%. We aimed to update and extend the existing knowledge from meta-analyses and estimate 30- and 90-day mortality rates for sepsis and septic shock separately, stratify rates by region and study type and assess mortality rates across different sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of articles published in PubMed or in the Cochrane Database, between 2009 and 2019 in English language including interventional and observational studies. A meta-analysis of pooled 28/30- and 90-day mortality rated separately for sepsis and septic shock was done using a random-effects model. Time trends were assessed via Joinpoint methodology and for the assessment of mortality rate over different SOFA scores, and linear regression was applied. RESULTS: Four thousand five hundred records were identified. After title/abstract screening, 783 articles were assessed in full text for eligibility. Of those, 170 studies were included. Average 30-day septic shock mortality was 34.7% (95% CI 32.6-36.9%), and 90-day septic shock mortality was 38.5% (95% CI 35.4-41.5%). Average 30-day sepsis mortality was 24.4% (95% CI 21.5-27.2%), and 90-day sepsis mortality was 32.2% (95% CI 27.0-37.5%). Estimated mortality rates from RCTs were below prospective and retrospective cohort studies. Rates varied between regions, with 30-day septic shock mortality being 33.7% (95% CI 31.5-35.9) in North America, 32.5% (95% CI 31.7-33.3) in Europe and 26.4% (95% CI 18.1-34.6) in Australia. A statistically significant decrease of 30-day septic shock mortality rate was found between 2009 and 2011, but not after 2011. Per 1-point increase of the average SOFA score, average mortality increased by 1.8-3.3%. CONCLUSION: Trends of lower sepsis and continuous septic shock mortality rates over time and regional disparities indicate a remaining unmet need for improving sepsis management. Further research is needed to investigate how trends in the burden of disease influence mortality rates in sepsis and septic shock at 30- and 90-day mortality over time.

Ticagrelor Removal by CytoSorb® in Patients Requiring Emergent or Urgent Cardiac Surgery: A UK-Based Cost-Utility Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acute coronary syndrome patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy who need emergent or urgent cardiac surgery are at high risk of major bleeding, which can impair postoperative outcomes. CytoSorb®, a blood purification technology based on adsorbent polymer, has been demonstrated to remove ticagrelor from blood during on-pump cardiac surgery. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost utility of intraoperative removal of ticagrelor using CytoSorb versus usual care among patients requiring emergent or urgent cardiac surgery in the UK. METHODS: A de novo decision analytic model, based on current treatment pathways, was developed to estimate the short- and long-term costs and outcomes. Results from randomised clinical trials and national standard sources such as National Health Service (NHS) reference costs were used to inform the model. Costs were estimated from the NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) explored the uncertainty surrounding the input parameters. RESULTS: In emergent cardiac surgery, intraoperative removal of ticagrelor using CytoSorb was less costly (£12,933 vs. £16,874) and more effective (0.06201vs. 0.06091 quality-adjusted life-years) than cardiac surgery without physiologic clearance of ticagrelor over a 30-day time horizon. For urgent cardiac surgery, the use of CytoSorb was less costly than any of the three comparators-delaying surgery for natural washout without adjunctive therapy, adjunctive therapy with short-acting antiplatelet agents, or adjunctive therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin. Results from the PSAs showed that CytoSorb has a high probability of being cost saving (99% in emergent cardiac surgery and 53-77% in urgent cardiac surgery, depending on the comparators). Cost savings derive from fewer transfusions of blood products and re-thoracotomies, and shorter stay in the hospital/intensive care unit. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of CytoSorb as an intraoperative intervention for patients receiving ticagrelor undergoing emergent or urgent cardiac surgery is a cost-saving strategy, yielding improvement in perioperative and postoperative outcomes and decreased health resource use.