MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400284153 · doi:10.1097/cce.0000000000001121

Actual Cost of Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Study

2024· article· en· W4400284153 on OpenAlexaff
Vinodh Bhagyalakshmi Nanjayya, Alisa M. Higgins, Laura Morphett, Sonny Thiara, Annalie Jones, Vincent Pellegrino, Jayne Sheldrake, Stephen Bernard, David M. Kaye, Alistair Nichol, D. James Cooper

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Explorations · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsVancouver General Hospital
FundersMonash University
KeywordsCardiopulmonary resuscitationExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationMedicineActivity-based costingIntensive care unitEmergency medicineExtracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitationTotal costCost driverResuscitationMedical emergencyIntensive care medicineAnesthesiaBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine the actual cost and drivers of the cost of an extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (E-CPR) care cycle. PERSPECTIVE: A time-driven activity-based costing study conducted from a healthcare provider perspective. SETTING: A quaternary care ICU providing around-the-clock E-CPR service for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) in Australia. METHODS: The E-CPR care cycle was defined as the time from initiating E-CPR to hospital discharge or death of the patient. Detailed process maps with discrete steps and probabilistic decision nodes accounting for the complex trajectories of E-CPR patients were developed. Data about clinical and nonclinical resources and timing of activities was collected multiple times for each process . Total direct costs were calculated using the time estimates and unit costs per resource for all clinical and nonclinical resources. The total direct costs were combined with indirect costs to obtain the total cost of E-CPR. RESULTS: From 10 E-CPR care cycles observed during the study period, a minimum of 3 observations were obtained per process. The E-CPR care cycle's mean (95% CI) cost was $75,014 ($66,209-83,222). Initiation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and ECMO management constituted 18% of costs. The ICU management (35%) and surgical costs (20%) were the primary cost determinants. IHCA had a higher mean (95% CI) cost than OHCA ($87,940 [75,372-100,570] vs. 62,595 [53,994-71,890], p < 0.01), mainly because of the increased survival and ICU length of stay of patients with IHCA. The mean cost for each E-CPR survivor was $129,503 ($112,422-147,224). CONCLUSIONS: Significant costs are associated with E-CPR for refractory cardiac arrest. The cost of E-CPR for IHCA was higher compared with the cost of E-CPR for OHCA. The major determinants of the E-CPR costs were ICU and surgical costs. These data can inform the cost-effectiveness analysis of E-CPR in the future.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care ExplorationsSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207