Cost-utility analysis of prehospital spine immobilization recommendations for penetrating trauma

被引:13
|
作者
Garcia, Arturo [1 ]
Liu, Terrence H. [1 ]
Victorino, Gregory P. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif San Francisco East Bay, Alameda Cty Med Ctr, Oakland, CA USA
来源
关键词
Prehospital spine immobilization; spinal cord injury; penetrating trauma; unstable spine injury; cost-utility analysis; GUNSHOT WOUNDS; CERVICAL-SPINE; LIFE-SUPPORT; CORD-INJURY; HEAD; TORSO; STANDARD; SURVIVAL; BLUNT; NECK;
D O I
10.1097/TA.0b013e3182aafe50
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons' Committee on Trauma's recent prehospital trauma life support recommendations against prehospital spine immobilization (PHSI) after penetrating trauma are based on a low incidence of unstable spine injuries after penetrating injuries. However, given the chronic and costly nature of devastating spine injuries, the cost-utility of PHSI is unclear. Our hypothesis was that the cost-utility of PHSI in penetrating trauma precludes routine use of this prevention strategy. METHODS: A Markov model based cost-utility analysis was performed from a society perspective of a hypothetical cohort of 20-year-old males presenting with penetrating trauma and transported to a US hospital. The analysis compared PHSI with observation alone. The probabilities of spine injuries, costs (US 2010 dollars), and utility of the two groups were derived from published studies and public data. Incremental effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years. Subset analyses of isolated head and neck injuries as well as sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the strength of the recommendations. RESULTS: Only 0.2% of penetrating trauma produced unstable spine injury, and only 7.4% of the patients with unstable spine injury who underwent spine stabilization had neurologic improvement. The total lifetime per-patient cost was $930,446 for the PHSI group versus $929,883 for the nonimmobilization group, with no difference in overall quality-adjusted life-years. Subset analysis demonstrated that PHSI for patients with isolated head or neck injuries provided equivocal benefit over nonimmobilization. CONCLUSION: PHSI was not cost-effective for patients with torso or extremity penetrating trauma. Despite increased incidence of unstable spine injures produced by penetrating head or neck injuries, the cost-benefit of PHSI in these patients is equivocal, and further studies may be needed before omitting PHSI in patients with penetrating head and neck injuries. Copyright (C) 2014 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
引用
收藏
页码:534 / 541
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Cost-utility analysis and otolaryngology
    Hamilton, D.
    Hulme, C.
    Flood, L.
    Powell, S.
    JOURNAL OF LARYNGOLOGY AND OTOLOGY, 2014, 128 (02): : 112 - 118
  • [22] HIV prevention, cost-utility analysis, and race/ethnicity: Methodological considerations and recommendations
    Holtgrave, DR
    MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2004, 24 (02) : 181 - 191
  • [23] Spine Immobilization in Penetrating Trauma: More Harm Than Good? COMMENT
    Rabb, Craig Hinson
    JOURNAL OF TRAUMA-INJURY INFECTION AND CRITICAL CARE, 2010, 68 (01): : 120 - 121
  • [24] Cost-Utility Analyses in Spine Care A Qualitative and Systematic Review
    Nwachukwu, Benedict U.
    Schairer, William W.
    Shifflett, Grant D.
    Kellner, Daniel B.
    Sama, Andrew A.
    SPINE, 2015, 40 (01) : 31 - 40
  • [25] A Cost-Utility Analysis of Lumbar Decompression With and Without Fusion for Degenerative Spine Disease in the Elderly
    Devin, Clinton J.
    Chotai, Silky
    Parker, Scott L.
    Tetreault, Lindsay
    Fehlings, Michael G.
    McGirt, Matthew J.
    NEUROSURGERY, 2015, 77 : S116 - S124
  • [26] Decision Modeling for Cost-Utility Analysis
    Kuntz, Karen M.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2016, 19 (06) : 700 - 701
  • [27] Cost-utility analysis for statins in Mexico
    Quevedo, MJF
    Contreras, I
    Nevarez, A
    García-Contreras, F
    Constantino-Casas, P
    Garduño, J
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2005, 8 (03) : 269 - 269
  • [28] COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS OF CANCER CARE
    OESER, H
    KOEPPE, P
    MUNCHENER MEDIZINISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT, 1984, 126 (09): : A38 - &
  • [29] An instrumentalist critique of ''cost-utility analysis''
    Hildred, W
    Beauvais, F
    JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ISSUES, 1995, 29 (04) : 1083 - 1096
  • [30] Cost-utility analysis, the pearl in the crown
    Brown, Melissa M.
    Brown, Gary C.
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY-JOURNAL CANADIEN D OPHTALMOLOGIE, 2010, 45 (03): : 211 - 212