Lall, Ranjit, Hamilton, Patrick, Young, Duncan, Hulme, Claire, Hall, Peter, Shah, Sanjoy, MacKenzie, Iain, Tunnicliffe, William, Rowan, Kathy, Cuthbertson, Brian, McCabe, Chris and Lamb, Sallie E. (2015) A randomised controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation against conventional artificial ventilation for adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome. The OSCAR (OSCillation in ARDS) study. Health Technology Assessment, 19 (23). doi:10.3310/hta19230

An open access version can be found in:

• Publisher

Request Changes to record.

Abstract

Background: Patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) require artificial ventilation but this treatment may produce secondary lung damage. High-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) may reduce this damage. Objectives: To determine the clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of HFOV in patients with ARDS compared with standard mechanical ventilation. Design: A parallel, randomised, unblinded clinical trial. Setting: UK intensive care units. Participants: Mechanically ventilated patients with a partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood/fractional concentration of inspired oxygen (P: F) ratio of 26.7 kPa (200 mmHg) or less and an expected duration of ventilation of at least 2 days at recruitment. Interventions: Treatment arm HFOV using a Novalung R100® ventilator (Metran Co. Ltd, Saitama, Japan) ventilator until the start of weaning. Control arm Conventional mechanical ventilation using the devices available in the participating centres. Main outcome measures: The primary clinical outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days after randomisation. The primary health economic outcome was the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Results: One hundred and sixty-six of 398 patients (41.7%) randomised to the HFOV group and 163 of 397 patients (41.1%) randomised to the conventional mechanical ventilation group died within 30 days of randomisation (p = 0.85), for an absolute difference of 0.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) −6.1% to 7.5%]. After adjustment for study centre, sex, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, and the initial P: F ratio, the odds ratio for survival in the conventional ventilation group was 1.03 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.40; p = 0.87 logistic regression). Survival analysis showed no difference in the probability of survival up to 12 months after randomisation. The average QALY at 1 year in the HFOV group was 0.302 compared to 0.246. This gives an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the cost to society per QALY of £88,790 and an ICER for the cost to the NHS per QALY of £78,260. Conclusions: The use of HFOV had no effect on 30-day mortality in adult patients undergoing mechanical ventilation for ARDS and no economic advantage. We suggest that further research into avoiding ventilator-induced lung injury should concentrate on ventilatory strategies other than HFOV. © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2015.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	R Medicine > R Medicine (General)
Divisions:	Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences > Clinical Trials Unit Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School
Journal or Publication Title:	Health Technology Assessment
Publisher:	NIHR Journals Library
ISSN:	1366-5278
Official Date:	1 March 2015
Dates:	Date Event 1 March 2015 Published
Volume:	19
Number:	23
DOI:	10.3310/hta19230
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Publication Status:	Published
Access rights to Published version:	Restricted or Subscription Access
Funder:	National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (Great Britain) (NIHR HTA)
Grant number:	06/04/01
Open Access Version:	Publisher

Request changes or add full text files to a record

Repository staff actions (login required)

View Item