title: When is critical care medicine cost-effective? A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness literature.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Receiving care in an intensive care unit can greatly influence patients' survival and quality of life. Such treatments can, however, be extremely resource intensive. Therefore, it is increasingly important to understand the costs and consequences associated with interventions aimed at reducing mortality and morbidity of critically ill patients. Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) have become increasingly common to aid decisions about the allocation of scarce healthcare resources.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To identify published original CEAs presenting cost/quality-adjusted life year or cost/life-year ratios for treatments used in intensive care units, to summarize the results in an accessible format, and to identify areas in critical care medicine that merit further economic evaluation.
  
  
  METHODS
  We conducted a systematic search of the English-language literature for original CEAs of critical care interventions published from 1993 through 2003. We collected data on the target population, therapy or program, study results, analytic methods employed, and the cost-effectiveness ratios presented.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We identified 19 CEAs published through 2003 with 48 cost-effectiveness ratios pertaining to treatment of severe sepsis, acute respiratory failure, and general critical care interventions. These ratios ranged from cost saving to 958,423 US dollars/quality-adjusted life year and from 1,150 to 575,054 US dollars/life year gained. Many studies reported favorable cost-effectiveness profiles (i.e., below 50,000 US dollars/life year or quality-adjusted life year).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Specific interventions such as activated protein C for patients with severe sepsis have been shown to provide good value for money. However, overall there is a paucity of CEA literature on the management of the critically ill, and further high-quality CEA is needed. In particular, research should focus on costly interventions such as 24-hr intensivist availability, early goal-directed therapy, and renal replacement therapy. Recent guidelines for the conduct of CEAs in critical care may increase the number and improve the quality of future CEAs.
authors.affiliation: Department of Anesthesia, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
authors.forename: Daniel
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Talmor
authors.forename: Nathan
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Shapiro
authors.forename: Dan
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Greenberg
authors.forename: Patricia W
authors.initials: PW
authors.lastname: Stone
authors.forename: Peter J
authors.initials: PJ
authors.lastname: Neumann
mesh_terms: D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D003422:Critical Care / Q000191:economics*; D017048:Health Care Costs; D006801:Humans; D007362:Intensive Care Units / Q000191:economics*; D019057:Quality-Adjusted Life Years; D018746:Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome / Q000191:economics / Q000628:therapy