Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39605015›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2024

A cost effectiveness analysis of a quality improvement intervention to increase preferential balanced fluid prescribing.

Michelle C Spiegel, Kit N Simpson, Annie N Simpson, Andrew J Goodwin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Michelle C SpiegelDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy, and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. Spiegel@MUSC.edu.
Kit N SimpsonDepartment of Health Care Leadership and Management, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Annie N SimpsonDepartment of Health Care Leadership and Management, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Andrew J GoodwinDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy, and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe higher cost of balanced fluids has historically contributed to preferential normal saline (NS) use. Recent clinical trials demonstrated that balanced fluids reduced the incidence of major adverse kidney events among hospitalized patients and also reduced mortality among critically ill patients. This study sought to conduct an economic evaluation of a recently published quality improvement (QI) intervention to increase preferential balanced fluid prescribing, which significantly increased the relative proportion of balanced fluid orders.

methodsUsing clinical trial data and real-world data from our prior QI intervention in conjunction with local and regional cost data, we constructed a decision tree to examine the economic cost and clinical consequences of using NS, lactated ringers (LR), and plasma-lyte for 30,000 hypothetical adult patients and 1,290 hypothetical critically ill adult patients with sepsis admitted to our institution over one year. Clinical outcomes (hospitalization to day 30) included development of acute kidney injury (AKI), new requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT), and in-hospital mortality. The primary economic outcome was the difference in cost between the pre- and post-QI intervention periods. Sensitivity analyses and breakeven analyses were performed. Evaluation was conducted from South Carolina hospitals' perspective.

resultsFor the overall cohort, simulation predicted that 53 AKIs, 2 instances of RRT, and 62 deaths were avoided in the post-intervention year with a net cost savings of $704,507. For the critically ill patients with sepsis, simulation predicted that 32 AKIs, 4 instances of RRT, and 12 deaths were avoided with a net cost savings of $474,676. Sensitivity analyses using outcome data from additional clinical trials also estimated annual cost savings ($77,677-$414,872).

conclusionsThe QI intervention was predicted to improve patient outcomes while yielding significant cost-savings. The marginally increased cost of balanced fluids should not discourage implementation of interventions aimed at increasing evidence-supported balanced fluid prescribing.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisFluid TherapyQuality ImprovementAcute Kidney InjuryAdultCost-Effectiveness AnalysisCritical IllnessDecision TreesFemaleHospital MortalityHumansMaleSepsisCost effectivenessIntravenous fluidsQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID39605015
PMCPMC11603869

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.