Cost-Effectiveness of Decompressive Craniectomy as a Lifesaving Rescue Procedure for Patients With Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

Abstract

Severity of TBI had an important effect on cost-effectiveness of decompressive craniectomy. As a lifesaving procedure, decompressive craniectomy was not cost-effective for patients with extremely severe TBI.

Use and limitations of prognostic models for the critically ill

“…A prognostic model with a high AUROC can be used to reflect whether two treatment groups in a clinical trial are comparable, but this statistical parameter will not be useful to reflect how well this prognostic model will (i) perform as a risk adjustment tool in observational studies, or (ii) predict clinical outcome accurately as a decision-making and cost-effectiveness assessment tool. To achieve these latter objectives, we will need a well-calibrated prognostic model [5,6]. Of all the three prognostic models assessed in our study including the Admission APACHE II model [1,7], SAPSIII had the best calibration confirming the results of other studies that have evaluated this prognostic model.…”

A randomized controlled trial comparing autologous cranioplasty with custom-made titanium cranioplasty

“…primary procedure and as a secondary procedure in cases in which the primary material failed), 4 total number of neurosurgical operations ($25,000 per 2 hours operation), and length of additional hospital days ($1000 per ward day) including ICU stay ($3500 per day) due to complications (excluding ongoing hospital inpatient requirements), total antibiotic-days, and total operating room time. 12 The number of items of significant cost were measured (e.g., costs of titanium plates), but the actual total costs were estimated using average costs (e.g., days in the hospital) associated with each item as costed in Australia in 2011. No cost analysis was incorporated for the bone flap storage.…”

Economic Evaluations in the Diagnosis and Management of Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Analysis of Quality

“…Nine studies were cost-utility analyses [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25], five were costeffectiveness analyses [26][27][28][29][30], three were cost-minimization analyses [31][32][33], and seven were cost-consequences analyses [34][35][36][37][38][39][40]. There were no cost-benefit analyses that met our inclusion criteria.…”