ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2022
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Intravascular Targeted Temperature Management after Cardiac Arrest in England.
Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploratory Study of Selective Brain Hypothermia Using Transnasal Evaporative Cooling Under Controlled Normothermia with an Endovascular Device.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Article
- Latent class analysis for identification of sub-phenotypes predicting prognosis in hospitalized out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.Journal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures) · 2025Article
- Real-world cost-effectiveness of targeted temperature management in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survivors: results from an academic medical center.World journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- A model-based cost-utility analysis of an automated notification system for deteriorating patients on general wards.PloS one · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTargeted temperature management (TTM) has been shown to improve neurological outcomes and survival in patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest; however, the cost effectiveness of multiple TTM methods is not well studied.
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of intravascular temperature management (IVTM) using Thermogard XP compared with surface cooling methods after cardiac arrest in the England from the perspectives of the UK national health service and Personal Social Services.
methodsWe developed a multi-state Markov model that evaluated IVTM (Thermogard XP) compared with surface cooling using two different devices (Blanketrol III and Arctic Sun 5000) over a short-term and lifetime time horizon. Model input parameters were obtained from the literature and local databases. We assumed a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients who required TTM after cardiac arrest per year in the England. The outcomes were costs (in £, year 2019 values) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), discounted at 3.5% annually. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to examine the effect of alternative assumptions and uncertainty in model parameters on the results.
resultsThe cost-effectiveness analysis determined that Thermogard XP resulted in direct cost savings of £2339 and £2925 (per patient) compared with Blanketrol III and Arctic Sun 5000, respectively, and a gain of 0.98 QALYs over the patient lifetime. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the probability of Thermogard XP being cost saving would be 69.2% and 65.3% versus the Arctic Sun 5000 and Blanketrol III, respectively.
conclusionImplementation of IVTM using Thermogard XP can lead to cost savings and improved patient quality of life versus surface cooling methods.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.