Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T18:17:06.667Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pediatric Intraosseous Infusion as a Prehospital Skill

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Herbert G. Garrison*
Affiliation:
Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program, and Department of Emergency Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C.
Stephen M. Downs
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C.
Robert A. McNutt
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C.
Thomas R. Griggs
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C.
*
Herbert G. Garrison, MD, Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program, Campus Box 7105, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7105USA

Abstract

Purpose:

To determine the clinical efficacy, patient volume, and program costs that justify pediatric intraosseous (IO) infusion as a routine skill for the treatment of patients with cardiac arrest in a prehospital system.

Methods:

A decision analytic model was constructed to include patient outcomes and costs to society. Critical variables for the analysis were: 1) time to vascular access; 2) success of vascular access; 3) clinical efficacy (i.e., the percentage of lives saved by early vascular access); 4) number of patients requiring IO annually; and 5) the cost of an IO program. Program costs included training and equipment expenses. Sensitivity analysis, which repeatedly evaluates the model using different values for the critical variables, identified those values at which IO would be cost-effective.

Results:

With an estimated 80% success rate for IO access within five minutes, the cost-per-life-saved would be [US] $161,000. This cost-effectiveness ratio assumed annual program expenses of $2,000 and one patient per year needing IO. The cost-effectiveness ratio also required a clinical efficacy of 2% for vascular access. To prove that the clinical efficacy of vascular access is in fact 2%, epidemiologic studies would require a sample of nearly 9,000 patients.

Conclusions:

This analysis suggests IO probably is cost-effective given a clinical efficacy above 2%. While the true efficacy may be below this value, clinical studies are unlikely to have sufficient size to prove it. Therefore, emergency medical services (EMS) medical directors must make the decision to utilize IO based on their own beliefs about its clinical efficacy. Further, it must be considered in the context of other prehospital programs which may be more cost-effective. Such analyses permit establishment of rational priorities to rank programs in prehospital systems.

Type
Original Research
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Presented at the 7th Annual Scientific Assembly of the National Association of EMS Physicians, Orlando, Florida, June 1991.

References

1. Glaeser, PW, Losek, JD, Nelson, DB, et al. : Pediatric intraosseous infusions: Impact on vascular access time. Am J Emerg Med 1988;6:330332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Brunette, DD, Fischer, R: Intravascular access in pediatric cardiac arrest. Am J Emerg Med 1988;6:577579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Rossetti, V, Thompson, BM, Aprahamian, C, et al. : Difficulty and delay in intravascular access in pediatric arrests. Ann Emerg Med 1984;13:406. Abstract.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Fiser, DH: Intraosseous infusion. N Eng J Med 1990;322:15791581.Google ScholarPubMed
5. Spivey, WH: Intraosseous infusions: Current concepts. J Emerg Med 1990;8:382. Abstract.Google Scholar
6. Kanter, RK, Zimmerman, JJ, Strauss, RH, et al. : Pediatric emergency intravenous access: Evaluation of a protocol. AJDC 1986:140:132134.Google ScholarPubMed
7. Iserson, KV, Criss, E: Intraosseous infusions: A usable technique. Am J Emerg Med 1986;4:540542.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Orlowski, JP, Porembka, DT, Gallagher, JM, et al. : Comparison study of intraosseous, central intravenous, and peripheral intravenous infusions of emergency drugs. AJDC 1990; 144:112117.Google ScholarPubMed
9. Rosetti, VA, Thompson, BM, Miller, J, et al. : Intraosseous infusion: An alternative route of pediatric intravascular access. Ann Emerg Med 1985;14:885888.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Smith, RJ, Keseg, DP, Manley, LK, et al. : Intraosseous infusions by prehospital personnel in critically ill pediatric patients. Ann Emerg Med 1988;17:491495.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Miner, WF, Cornell, HM, Bolte, RG, et al. : Prehospital use of intraosseous infusion by paramedics. Pediatric Emerg Care 1989;5:57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Losek, JD, Hennes, H, Glaeser, P, et al. : Prehospital care of the pulseless, nonbreathing pediatric patient. Am J Emerg Med 1987:5:370374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Stroup, CA: Intraosseous infusion: Prehospital use in the critically ill pediatric patient. JEMS 1987;12:3839.Google Scholar
14. Seigler, RS, Tecklenburg, FW, Shealy, R: Prehospital intraosseous infusion by emergency medical services personnel: A prospective study. Pediatrics 1989:84:173177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Valenzuela, TD, Criss, EA, Spaite, D, et al. : Cost-effectiveness analysis of paramedic emergency medical services in the treatment of prehospital cardiopulmonary arrest. Ann Emerg Med 1990:19:14071411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Lieu, TA, Fleisher, GR, Schwartz, JS: Cost-effectiveness of rapid latex agglutination testing and throat culture for streptococcal pharyngitis. Pediatrics 1990:85:246256.Google ScholarPubMed
17. Garrison, HG, Benson, NH, Whitley, TW, et al. : Paramedic skills and medications: Practice options utilized by local advanced life support medical directors. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1991;6:2934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar