Cost-effectiveness analysis of termination-of-resuscitation rules for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

Abstract

AimTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of practices with and without termination-of-resuscitation (TOR) rules for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), using an analytic model based on a nationwide population-based registry in Japan. MethodsA combined model using a decision tree and Markov model was developed to compare costs and treatment effectiveness of three scenarios: basic life support (BLS) TOR rules (BLS-rule scenario), advanced life support (ALS) TOR rules (ALS-rule scenario), and no TOR rules (No-rule scenario). A nationwide population-based OHCA registry from January 1 to December 31, 2019 and published data were used. Analyses were performed from healthcare payers’ perspectives. Life-time incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was determined by the difference in cost between two scenarios, divided by the difference in quality adjusted life year (QALY). ResultsThe OHCA registry included 126,271 patients (57.3% men; median age, 80 years). The BLS-rule scenario yielded lower cost and less QALY than the ALS-rule scenario and No-rule scenario. With reference to the BLS-rule scenario, the ICERs for the ALS-rule scenario and No-rule scenario were 81,000 and 98,762 USD per QALY, respectively. The BLS-rule scenario was cost-effective in 100% of simulations at the willingness-to-pay threshold in Japan (5 million JPY = 45,455 USD). The willingness-to-pay threshold higher than 80,000 and 204,000 USD were required for the ALS-rule scenario and No-rule scenarios, respectively, to be cost-effective. ConclusionNo-rule scenario was not cost-effective compared with BLS-rule scenario within acceptable willingness-to-pay thresholds. Further research on health economics of TOR rules is warranted to support constructive discussion on implementing TOR rules.