Real-world cost-effectiveness of targeted temperature management in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survivors: results from an academic medical center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Targeted temperature management (TTM) is a common therapeutic intervention, yet its cost-effectiveness remains uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the real-world cost-effectiveness of TTM compared with that of conventional care in adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) survivors using clinical patient-level data. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at an academic medical center in the USA to assess the cost-effectiveness of TTM in adult non-traumatic OHCA survivors between 1 January, 2019 and 30 June, 2023. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and compared with various decision makers' willingness to pay. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were utilized to evaluate the economic attractiveness of TTM. Uncertainty about the incremental cost and effect was explored with a 95% confidence ellipse. RESULTS: Among 925 non-traumatic OHCA survivors, only 30 (3%) received TTM. After adjusting for potential confounders, the TTM group did not demonstrate a significantly lower cost (delta cost -$5,141, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: $-35,347 to $25,065, P=0.79) and higher survival to hospital discharge (delta effect 6%, 95% CI: -11% to 23%, P=0.41). Additionally, a 95% confidence ellipse indicated uncertainty reflected by evidence that the true value of the ICER could be in any of the quadrants of the cost-effectiveness plane. CONCLUSION: Although TTM did not demonstrate a clear survival benefit in this study, its potential cost-effectiveness warrants further investigation with larger sample sizes. These findings highlight the need for additional research to optimize TTM use in OHCA care and inform resource allocation decisions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".