1 / 38

Cost-Effectiveness of EEG Monitoring in Acute Brain Injury: What it is, What it is Not , and How to Measure It.

Massachusetts General Hospital Epilepsy and EEG Service Thursday, February 24, 2011. Cost-Effectiveness of EEG Monitoring in Acute Brain Injury: What it is, What it is Not , and How to Measure It.

yale
Download Presentation

Cost-Effectiveness of EEG Monitoring in Acute Brain Injury: What it is, What it is Not , and How to Measure It.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Massachusetts General Hospital Epilepsy and EEG Service Thursday, February 24, 2011 Cost-Effectiveness of EEG Monitoring in Acute Brain Injury: What it is, What it is Not,and How to Measure It. Kenneth Jordan, MD, FACP, FAAN, FACNS President, Jordan NeuroScience, Inc

  2. Scope of ICU-CEEG • 7,400 Intensive Care Units in USA • $180 billion (30% of acute care costs) • 55,000 patients/day in ICUs • Total ICU admissions/year = 5,000,000 • 10% have ICDN diagnoses at risk for NCS/NCSE. • 500,000 potential CEEG patients/year • Av. duration of CEEG is 3 days • >1.5 mil CEEG days/year to maintain, monitor and read 7. Market size for CEEG monitors = $52 million Refs: UCLA Brain Injury Research Center, www.aha.org,www.sccm.org; Claassen et al Neurology (2004); personal communication from CEO of global EEG company.

  3. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) • Goal: Identify the most cost-effective intervention from alternatives that meet a common health benefit and are competing for the same resources. Economic Evaluation of Public Health Preparedness and Response Efforts. CDC, at: http://www.cdc.gov/owcd/EET/Preface/Fixed/Preface.html

  4. Costs All intervention’s tangible costs; excludes intangible costs.

  5. WHAT EFFECTIVENESS IS AND WHAT IT IS NOT • Effectiveness is a health benefit caused directly or indirectly by an intervention. • The health benefit cannot exceed the capabilities of the intervention. e.g. The effectiveness of a screening program for prolonged Q-T syndrome is 1) its accuracy for detecting the condition and 2) its successful public health deployment. It is not whether the program saves lives, since that depends on factors beyond the capability of the screening program (Do pts follow up with the doctors; are the correct surveillance measures taken, are dangerous drugs avoided, is timely and correct treatment provided, etc) • The health benefits of EEG are limited to its detection of brain wave activity and its deployment methods. They do not include outcomes from subsequent treatment interventions.

  6. Cost-Effectiveness Ratio CER=ΔC/ΔE The numerator is the change in cost due to the application of an intervention and the denominator is the change in health benefit.

  7. Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (CER): The smaller the CER, the lower the cost and/or the more effective the intervention: a4= 27.14, c1= 2.27

  8. CEA of Set-Up Methods for Emergency EEG and CEEG Studies: EEG Technologist Call Back (ETCB) vs BraiNet® Template (BN)

  9. ETCB Indications • Any Study Initiated after 7 PM or before 7 AM M-F • Any Study Initiated on Saturday, Sunday or work holidays • Remove and/or Re-apply CEEG electrodes for imaging studies or other procedures. • Revise, re-apply, repair and/or re-insert electrodes during CEEG or other ongoing study

  10. Bradley Kolls, MD, PhD, Dir of Crit. Care Monitoring Duke University Medical Center

  11. Utilization Over Time by Location* Total 2008 Emergency EEGs = 450 ETCBs = 320 (71%) *Pediatric cases not included

  12. Lab Survey Findings

  13. Lab Survey Findings

  14. Summary of ECB and CEEG Utilization

  15. Time-Motion Profile for One ETCB Study

  16. ETCB vs. BraiNet® Costs ScenarioI: 250 ECB/year *ETCB = 6,072 hrs or 253 days/year. 28/hr base wage + benefits,etc, OT=$50/hr. **Retail: dispos electrodes $65, BN $35+electrodes

  17. ETCB vs. BraiNet® Costs Scenario2: 500 ECB/year

  18. EFFECTIVENESS Benefits/Equivalence of BN vs. ETCB

  19. Equivalence Study of BraiNet and Technologist Applied Electrode Leads* B. Kolls and K. Dombrowski, Duke University Medical Center *Sponsored by JNS under DoD Award. JNS provided BN training but was not otherwise involved in study or data analysis.

  20. Results • 32 of 36 studies initiated with the BraiNet were analyzed. • 6 of the BN studies were done with disks and 26 were done with needles. • 4 studies were attempted with the BN initially, but failed due to • Improper use of conduction agents on disk electrodes n=1 • improper use of fixative agents to needle electrodes n=1 • Old leads with capacitance problems n=2 • All occurred within the initial weeks of study and did not recur

  21. Both BN and Tech leads had impedances < 5 kOhms at the beginning of the studies with no significant change over the 8 hours of recording.

  22. Quality Assessment Four senior EEG readers blinded to the lead application method reviewed the records. They were asked to: • Guess the lead placement method (BN Needle, BN Disk, Tech) • Rate the quality of the data • Report their findings for the segment

  23. Quality Assessment: Method of Lead Placement • Reviewers accuracy rate = 33%, equal to random guesses among the three choices; ie. • Reviewers could not detect any differences in quality of recording among BN SNE, BN disks, or Tech disks • When binary choice of BN vs Tech was offered (random=50%), accuracy rate was 56%, showing no difference in BN vs Tech.

  24. Bias Against EEG Templates (or Pro-Tech Leads) P<.001 Blinded Reviewers Assigned Poorer Quality Recordings to the BN Method and Higher Quality to the Tech Leads*

  25. Cure for Bias Against EEG Templates (or Pro-Tech Leads) Actual Quality Results: No significant differences between BN and Tech Methods P=0.3810

  26. INTERPRETATION OF EEG RECORDINGS No reported disparities between 8 hours of BN recordings and subsequent 8 hours of Tech lead recordings.

  27. Summary of CEA of BN Method vs. ETCB • COST: • BN saves 45-50% in costs compared to ETCB. • These savings increase cumulatively, steeply and almost linearly with increasing emergency requests. • EFFECTIVENESS: • BN is equivalent in quality of recording to ETCB • BN is 3x faster to set-up EEG compared to ETCB • BN revealed no interpretation differences from Tech studies.

  28. CER FOR ETCB vs BN • ETCB: • Average cost for 5 years of incrementing studies = $186,000 • Relative Speed of set-up = 1.0 • CER = 186/1 = 186 • 2. BN: • Average cost for 5 years of incrementing studies = $92,000 • Relative Speed of set-up = 3.0 • CER = 92/3 = 31

  29. CONCLUSION The BN method is six times more cost effective than ETCB to Set-Up Emergency EEG and CEEG Studies

  30. The BN is also the only EEG Set-Up Template that is: • FDA cleared for use in all ages: neonates through adults • Proven for accurate placement and quality of recording • For every type of ABI, both traumatic and non-traumatic • Proven effective for acute set-up through continuous EEG monitoring • Compatible with CT and MRI imaging • Plus: • User electrode choice, including MRI/CT compatible electrodes • Electrodes can be placed/replaced by on-site caregivers • Disposable for infection control • Compatible with EVD, ICP and Licox monitors

  31. THANK YOU!

More Related