ArticleResuscitation plus2026
Cost effectiveness of pre-hospital extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest - An analysis of the PRECARE study.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Ethics in prehospital extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: While the use of pre-hospital extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for refractory out of hospital cardiac arrest is increasing, there is little data on whether it is cost-effective. This study investigated its cost-effectiveness of based on our current study data. Methods: Using data from the PRECARE trial, the New South Wales Ambulance Cardiac Arrest Registry (CAR) and in-hospital costings, we performed a cost effectiveness analysis of pre-hospital extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR). A Markov model was used to integrate PRECARE service costs and patient outcomes, team time allocation to ECPR, patient volume, organ donation and alternate pre-hospital delivery strategies. Bridging formulae were used with ECPR survivor Cerebral Performance Category scores to estimate Quality Adjusted Life Years and Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratios. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was undertaken to assess the joint uncertainty in model parameters. Results: Sixteen patients were analysed (mean age 52 ± 10 years). Five patients (31%) survived to hospital discharge; all with a cerebral performance category score of 1 or 2. Three (60%) of survivors returned to work during the study period. There was one organ donor. The total cost per patient was $94,460 (±$103,455), with a base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of AUD 34,000 per quality adjusted life year (assuming 100 patients per year, and ECPR cases occupying 15% of the PH-ECPR team's time). If the PRECARE team were exclusively dedicated to ECPR cases, the cost per quality adjusted life year would increase to $95,000. Conclusion: PH-ECPR in Sydney is likely to be cost-effective, assuming a 15% allocation of prehospital team time to ECPR. Survival rate, organ donation and the team's ability to perform other clinical tasks when not performing ECPR are key factors influencing cost effectiveness. A PH team exclusively dedicated to ECPR is much less cost-effective.
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.