Abstract Objective: To compare the resource implications and short term outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and conventional management for term babies with severe respiratory failure. Design: Cost effectiveness evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial. Setting: 55 approved recruiting hospitals in the United Kingdom. These hospitals provided conventional management, but infants randomised to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were transferred to one of five specialist centres. Subjects: 185 mature newborn infants (gestational age at birth >35 weeks, birth weight >2 kg) with severe respiratory failure (oxygenation index >40) recruited between 1993 and 1995. The commonest diagnoses were persistent pulmonary hypertension due to meconium aspiration, congenital diaphragmatic hernia, isolated persistent fetal circulation, sepsis, and idiopathic respiratory distress syndrome. Main outcome measure: Cost effectiveness based on survival at 1 year of age without severe disability. Results: 63 (68%) of the 93 infants randomised to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation survived to 1 year compared with 38 (41%) of the 92 infants who received conventional management. Of those that survived, one infant in each arm was lost to follow up and the proportion with disability at 1 year was similar in the two arms of the trial. One child in each arm had severe disability. The estimated additional cost of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation per additional surviving infant without severe disability was £51 222 and the cost per surviving infant with no disability was £75 327. Conclusions: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for term neonates with severe respiratory failure would increase overall survival without disability. Although the policy will increase costs of neonatal health care, it is likely to be as cost effective as other life extending technologies.
[1]
D. Cooper.
Radioiodine for hyperthyroidism: where do we stand after 50 years?
,
1998,
JAMA.
[2]
Duncan Macrae,et al.
UK collaborative randomised trial of neonatal extracorporeal membrane oxygenation
,
1996,
The Lancet.
[3]
Michael Peckham,et al.
Research and development for the National Health Service
,
1991,
The Lancet.
[4]
A. Stevens,et al.
'Quick and clean': authoritative health technology assessment for local health care contracting.
,
1995,
Health trends.
[5]
L Hallam.
Costing neonatal care alongside the ECMO trial.
,
1996,
Health economics.
[6]
M. Drummond,et al.
Evaluating the BMJ guidelines for economic submissions: prospective audit of economic submissions to BMJ and The Lancet.
,
1998,
JAMA.
[7]
A. Netten,et al.
Unit Costs of Community Care 1995
,
1994
.
[8]
D Elbourne,et al.
Costing neonatal care alongside the Collaborative ECMO trial: how much primary research is required?
,
1995,
Health economics.
[9]
K. Calman,et al.
Hospital doctors: training for the future
,
1995,
British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.
[10]
D Elbourne,et al.
A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Neonatal ECMO Using Existing Evidence
,
1996,
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.
[11]
Thomas C. Chalmers,et al.
Economic Analysis in Randomized Control Trials
,
1992,
Medical care.
[12]
V Demicheli,et al.
Are guidelines for peer-reviewing economic evaluations necessary? A survey of current editorial practice.
,
1995,
Health economics.