A systematic review of effectiveness and economic evaluation of Cardiohelp and portable devices for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)

Abstract

In recent years, there have been substantial advancements in the development of different technologies for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for in-hospital and out of hospital applications. However the effectiveness of these devices is not clearly known. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Cardiohelp compared to other portable ECMO devices. In this systematic review, we searched Medline (via Ovid), Embase, Pubmed, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, CRD and NICE. Articles were assessed by two independent reviewers for eligibility and quality of the evidence. Studies which compared Cardiohelp to other ECMO devices were included. Seven out of 1316 publication were included in this review, three of them were clinical trials and four were observational studies. The majority of the studies had limited quality. According to the measures of safety, Cardiohelp had safer technological features, but on the other hand, was more complex to use. Considering the effectiveness, Cardiohelp was not statistically different from other technologies. Cardiohelp showed slightly better performance than Centrimag in terms of cost per patient and cost-effectiveness. However, when clinical criteria were used to select the patients with good prognosis to administer the ECMO, incremental cost utility ratios (ICURs) for both Cardiohelp and Centrimag were below the level of willingness-to-pay threshold. According to the measures of safety and effectiveness, ECMO with Cardiohelp was not considerably different from other evaluated technologies. Moreover, ECMO with Cardiohelp or Centrimag can be considered cost-effective, provided that the patients are selected carefully in terms of neurological outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. 1.

    Fraser JF, Shekar K, Diab S, Dunster K, Foley SR, Mcdonald CI, et al. ECMO—the clinician’s view. ISBT Sci Ser. 2012;7:82–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Shekar K, Mullany DV, Thomson B, Ziegenfuss M, Platts DG, Fraser JF. Extracorporeal life support devices and strategies for management of acute cardio-respiratory failure in adult patients: a comprehensive review. Crit Care. 2014;18:219.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Allen S, Holena D, McCunn M, Kohl B, Sarani B. A review of the fundamental principles and evidence base in the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in critically ill adult patients. J Intensive Care Med. 2011;26:13–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Bartlett RH, Gattinoni L. Current status of extracorporeal life support (ECMO) for cardiopulmonary failure. Minerva Anestesiol. 2010;76:534–40.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Krane M, Mazzitelli D, Schreiber U, Garzia AM, Braun S, Voss B, et al. Lifebridge B2T—a new portable cardiopulmonary bypass system. ASAIO J. 2010;56:52–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Berdais D, Born F, Crosset M, Horisberger J, Künzli A, Ferrari E, et al. Superior venous drainage in the “LifeBox”: a portable extracorporeal oxygenator with a self-expanding venous cannula. Perfusion. 2010;25:211–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Kim AJ, Kim HJ, Lee HY, Ahn HS, Lee SW. Comparing extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation with conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a meta-analysis. Resuscitation. 2016;103:106–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Singh J. Critical appraisal skills programme. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2013;4:76–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Combes A. Extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Réanimation 2011;20:49–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Schober A, Holzer M. Emergency cardiopulmonary bypass after cardiac arrest with ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation—a pilot randomized trial. In: ClinicalTrials.gov [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US). 2000. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01605409. Cited 23 Jan 2016

  12. 12.

    Malfertheiner MV, Philipp A, Lubnow M, Zeman F, Enger TB, Bein T, et al. Hemostatic changes during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a prospective randomized clinical trial comparing three different extracorporeal membrane oxygenation systems. Crit Care Med. 2016;44:747–54.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Shah AP, Russo MJ, Karol J, Beiser D, Bozzay T, Paul J, et al. Access to a portable miniaturized extracorporeal membrane oxygenation system increases utilization for cardiac arrest patients. Circulation. 2012;126:A229.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Palanzo DA, Baer LD, Banayosy AE, Wang S, Ündar A, Pae WE. Choosing a pump for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the USA. Artif Org. 2014;38:1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Lehle K, Philipp A, Hiller KA, Zeman F, Buchwald D, Schmid C, et al. Efficiency of gas transfer in venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: analysis of 317 cases with four different ECMO systems. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40:1870–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Burišková K, Rogalewicz V, Ošťádal P. Cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in patients with refractory cardiac arrest. Value Health. 2014;17:A488.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Schopka S, Philipp A, Hilker M, Muller T, Zimmermann M, Arlt M, et al. Clinical course and long-term outcome following venoarterial extracorporeal life support-facilitated interhospital transfer of patients with circulatory failure. Resuscitation. 2015;93:53–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Peek GJ, Mugford M, Tiruvoipati R, Wilson A, Allen E, Thalanany MM, et al. Efficacy and economic assessment of conventional ventilatory support versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure (CESAR): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;374:1351–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Haneya A, Philipp A, Diez C, Schopka S, Bein T, Zimmermann M, et al. A 5-year experience with cardiopulmonary resuscitation using extracorporeal life support in non-postcardiotomy patients with cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2012;83:1331–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    St-Onge M, Fan E, Mégarbane B, Hancock-Howard R, Coyte PC. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for patients in shock or cardiac arrest secondary to cardiotoxicant poisoning: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Crit Care. 2015;30:437-e7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Borisenko O, Wylie G, Payne J, Bjessmoa S, Smithe J, Firmin R, et al. The cost impact of short-term ventricular assist devices and extracorporeal life support systems therapies on the National Health Service in the UK. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2014;19:41–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Tramm R, Ilic D, Davies AR, Pellegrino VA, Romero L, Hodgson C. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for critically ill adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015.

  23. 23.

    Borisenko O, Wylie G, Payne J, Bjessmo S, Smith J, Yonan N, et al. Thoratec Centrimag for temporary treatment of refractory cardiogenic shock or severe cardiopulmonary insufficiency: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of observational studies. ASAIO J. 2014;60:487–97.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Lehle K, Philipp A, Müller T, Schettler F, Bein T, Schmid C, et al. Flow dynamics of different adult ECMO systems: a clinical evaluation. Artif Org. 2014;38:391–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) of Iran. The funder is not involved in the design of the study or collection, analysis and interpretation of data, or in writing the manuscript. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fariba Heidari.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mahboub-Ahari, A., Heidari, F., Sadeghi-Ghyassi, F. et al. A systematic review of effectiveness and economic evaluation of Cardiohelp and portable devices for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). J Artif Organs 22, 6–13 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10047-018-1067-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation
  • Effectiveness
  • Cost-effectiveness
  • Extracorporeal life support