Outcome and Cost of Nurse-Led vs Perfusionist-led Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

Abstract

BackgroundExtracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a resource-intense modality of care whose use has grown exponentially. We examined volume and utilization trends to identify the financial break-even point that might serve to dichotomize between nurse specialist–led and perfusionist-led ECMO programs. MethodsData pertaining to patients who required ECMO support between 2018 and 2019 were reviewed. ECMO staffing costs were estimated based on national trends and modeled by annual utilization and case volume. A break-even point was derived from a comparison between nurse specialist–led and perfusionist-led models. For each scenario, direct medical costs were calculated based on utilization, which was in turn defined by “low” (4 days), “average” (10 days), and “high” (30 days) duration of time spent on ECMO. ResultsWithin the study time frame, there was a total of 107 ECMO cases with a mean ECMO duration of 11 days. Overall, ECMO nursing personnel costs were less than those for perfusionists ($108,000 vs $175,000). Programmatic costs were higher in the perfusionist-led vs nurse specialist-led model when annual utilization was greater than 10 cases and ECMO duration was longer than a mean of 9.7 days. There was no difference in survival between the 2 models. ConclusionsUse of a perfusionist-led ECMO model may be more cost-conscious in the context of low utilization, smaller case volume and shorter ECMO duration. However, once annual case volume exceeds 10 and mean ECMO duration exceeds 10 days, the nurse specialist–led model may be more cost-conscious.