SynthesisArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2024
Cost-Utility of Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Refractory Cardiogenic Shock: A Brazilian Perspective Study.
Synthesis in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cost-Effectiveness of Therapies for Heart Failure in Brazil: A Systematic Review.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2026Pooled it
- Conduction System Pacing vs Biventricular Pacing in Chronic Heart Failure: Protocol for the Economic Analysis of the PhysioSync-HF Trial.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2025Trial
- Hospital Costs Associated With Mechanical Left Ventricular Unloading Devices During VA ECMO for Adult Cardiogenic Shock.Artificial organs · 2026Article
- The Economics of Cardiac Rehabilitation in North, Central, and South America: A Narrative Review.The Canadian journal of cardiology · 2025Review
- No Time to Die.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRefractory cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with high mortality rates, and the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) as a therapeutic option has generated discussions. Therefore, its cost-effectiveness, especially in low- and middle-income countries like Brazil, remains uncertain.Objectives: To conduct a cost-utility analysis from the Brazilian Unified Health System perspective to assess the cost-effectiveness of VA-ECMO combined with standard care compared to standard care alone in adult refractory CS patients.
methodsWe followed a cohort of refractory CS patients treated with VA-ECMO in tertiary care centers located in Southern Brazilian. We collected data on hospital outcomes and costs. We conducted a systematic review to supplement our data and utilized a Markov model to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and per life-year gained.
resultsIn the base-case analysis, VA-ECMO yielded an ICER of Int$ 37,491 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses identified hospitalization cost, relative risk of survival, and VA-ECMO group survival as key drivers of results. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis favored VA-ECMO, with a 78% probability of cost-effectiveness at the recommended willingness-to-pay threshold.
conclusionsOur study suggests that, within the Brazilian Health System framework, VA-ECMO may be a cost-effective therapy for refractory CS. However, limited efficacy data and recent trials questioning its benefit in specific patient subsets highlight the need for further research. Rigorous clinical trials, encompassing diverse patient profiles, are essential to confirm cost-effectiveness and ensure equitable access to advanced medical interventions within healthcare systems, particularly in socio-economically diverse countries like Brazil.
Indexed as
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.