↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Proportional-Assist Ventilation Plus vs. Pressure Support Ventilation in the Intensive Care Unit in Two Countries

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Proportional-Assist Ventilation Plus vs. Pressure Support Ventilation in the Intensive Care Unit in Two Countries
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00168
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rhodri Saunders, Dimitris Geogopoulos

Abstract

Background: Mechanical ventilation is an integral, but expensive, part of the intensive care unit (ICU). Optimal use of mechanical ventilation could save costs and improve patient outcomes. Here, the cost effectiveness of proportional assist ventilation (PAV™ ventilation by Medtronic) is estimated relative to pressure support ventilation (PSV). Methods: A cohort-level, clinical model was built using data from clinical trials. The model estimates patient-ventilator asynchrony >10%, tracheostomy, ventilator-associated pneumonia, other nosocomial infections, spontaneous breathing trial success, hypoxemia, and death. Cost and quality of life are associated with all events, with cost effectiveness defined as the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained in the US and UK. Results: The mean cost of ICU care was lower with PAV™ than with PSV in the US and UK, but the total cost of care over 40 years was higher due to more patients surviving and incurring future care costs. Reduced time on mechanical ventilation, fewer nosocomial infections, and extended life expectancy with PAV™ drove QALY improvement. The cost per QALY gained with PAV™ was $8,628 and £2,985. Conclusion: PAV™ improves quality of life and reduces short-term costs. PAV™ is likely to be considered cost-effective over 40-years in the US and UK.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 18%
Other 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 10 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 14%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 9%
Engineering 3 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 11 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 March 2019.
All research outputs
#6,482,695
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#2,211
of 11,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,192
of 330,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#48
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,270 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,320 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.