{"id":71125,"date":"2012-03-07T04:55:13","date_gmt":"2012-03-07T04:55:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.immortalitymedicine.tv\/uncategorized\/is-aggressive-treatment-of-severe-traumatic-brain-injury-cost-effective.php"},"modified":"2024-08-17T16:52:55","modified_gmt":"2024-08-17T20:52:55","slug":"is-aggressive-treatment-of-severe-traumatic-brain-injury-cost-effective","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/longevity-medicine\/is-aggressive-treatment-of-severe-traumatic-brain-injury-cost-effective.php","title":{"rendered":"Is aggressive treatment of severe traumatic brain injury cost effective?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>Public  release date: 6-Mar-2012  [ |   E-mail   |  Share    ]  <\/p>\n<p>    Contact: Gillian Shasby    <a href=\"mailto:gshasby@thejns.org\">gshasby@thejns.org<\/a>    434-924-5555    Journal of    Neurosurgery Publishing Group<\/p>\n<p>    Charlottesville, VA (March 6, 2012). Researchers at the    Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania    have demonstrated that aggressive treatment of severe traumatic    brain injury, which includes invasive monitoring of    intracranial pressure (ICP) and decompressive craniectomy,    produces better patient outcomes than less aggressive measures    and is cost-effective in patients no matter their ageeven in    patients 80 years of age. These important findings can be found    in the article \"Is aggressive treatment of traumatic brain    injury cost-effective? Clinical article,\" by Robert Whitmore    and colleagues, published online March 6 in the Journal    of Neurosurgery.  <\/p>\n<p>    The authors set out to determine whether aggressive treatment    of severe traumatic brain injury is cost-effective compared to    less aggressive therapeutic approaches. \"Severe traumatic brain    injury\" in this study is defined by a Glasgow Coma Scale score    of 8 or less in which the motor component is 5 or less. These    researchers created a decisionanalysis model with which they    could compare outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness of three    treatment strategies: 1) comfort care consisting of one day in    the intensive care unit followed by continued care in a    medical-surgical unit; 2) routine care in which Brain Trauma    Foundation guidelines were followed less than 50 percent of the    time; and 3) aggressive management in which Brain Trauma    Foundation guidelines were followed the majority of the time,    with ICP monitored invasively and decompressive craniotomy    performed. A review of the literature provided probabilities of    Glasgow Outcome Scale scores (1 [death] through 5 [good    outcome]) for each treatment group. The researchers took these    Glasgow Outcome Scale scores and converted them into    quality-adjusted life years in accordance with expectations of    patient longevity and quality of life associated with the    various Glasgow Outcome Scale scores. They also calculated    estimates of direct costs (acute and long-term medical care)    and indirect costs (loss of productivity) for patients 20, 40,    60, and 80 years old.  <\/p>\n<p>    In every age group aggressive care resulted in better outcomes    (more quality-adjusted years) than routine care, and routine    care resulted in better outcomes than comfort care. (Comfort    care was included in the analysis to broaden the comparison of    outcomes and costs, but it is not suggested as a treatment    choice.) In the case of an average 20-year-old patient,    aggressive care produced 11.7  1.6 quality-adjusted life    years, whereas routine care only yielded 10.0  1.5    quality-adjusted life years. The difference between these two    numbers is highly significant (p < 0.0001). At older patient    ages, the effectiveness of aggressive care was not as great as    that in the 20-year-old patient, but it remained better than    routine care at all ages. Aggressive care also proved to be    less costly for most patients. Taking into account both direct    and indirect costs, the researchers found that aggressive care    was significantly less costly than routine care in the average    20-year-old patient ($1,264,000  $118,000 for aggressive care    and $1,361,000  $107,000 for routine care). Aggressive care    continued to be less costly until one looked at the 80-year-old    patient, at which point it became more costly than routine    care. To determine the cost-effectiveness of aggressive care in    the average 80-year-old patient, the authors divided the    difference in costs between aggressive care and routine care    ($170,978  $128,432 = $42,546) by the difference in    effectiveness between these two groups (3.2758  2.7951 =    0.4807). They found that each quality-adjusted life year that    is gained by implementing aggressive care, rather than routine    care, costs society approximately $88,000. The authors point    out that cost-effectiveness depends on the willingness of a    society to pay for improved outcomes. Recent numbers posited    have exceeded $100,000 for each quality-adjusted life year.    Using that number as a threshold, the researchers found that    aggressive care is the most cost-effective strategy for all age    groups.  <\/p>\n<p>    The authors point out that this is the first time that    long-term societal benefits of aggressive treatment of    traumatic brain injury have been demonstrated. Although    initially aggressive treatment may appear more expensive than    routine or comfort care, over time improvements in patient    outcome shift the balance and aggressive treatment proves to be    the most cost-effective of the three treatment paradigms.    Comfort care, on the other hand, is related to poor outcomes    and high costs. It should only be used after aggressive    treatment has failed or tests show that it will fail.  <\/p>\n<p>    Speaking of the study, Dr. Whitmore mentioned his initial    surprise that \"even for an 80-year-old patient, higher upfront    costs of aggressive TBI [traumatic brain injury] management    (surgery and invasive monitoring) would still be cost-effective    when the benefits (outcomes) of aggressive treatment are    factored in.\" He continued, \"We hope that physicians will    consider the results of this study when faced with the decision    of how aggressive to be in the elderly TBI patient.\"  <\/p>\n<p>    ###  <\/p>\n<p>    Whitmore RG, Thawani JP, Grady S, Levine JM, Sanborn MR, Stein    SC. Is aggressive treatment of traumatic brain injury    cost-effective? Clinical article.\" Journal of    Neurosurgery, published ahead of print March 6, 2012; DOI:    10.3171\/2012.1.JNS11962.  <\/p>\n<p>    Disclosure: The study was funded by the National Institutes of    Healths National Institute of Neurological Disorders and    Stroke (5T32NS4312608). The authors report no conflict of    interest concerning the materials or methods used in this study    or the findings specified in this paper.  <\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>Read more here:<br \/>\n<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.eurekalert.org\/pub_releases\/2012-03\/jonp-iat030212.php\" title=\"Is aggressive treatment of severe traumatic brain injury cost effective?\" rel=\"noopener\">Is aggressive treatment of severe traumatic brain injury cost effective?<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> Public release date: 6-Mar-2012 [ | E-mail | Share ] Contact: Gillian Shasby <a href=\"mailto:gshasby@thejns.org\">gshasby@thejns.org<\/a> 434-924-5555 Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group Charlottesville, VA (March 6, 2012). Researchers at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania have demonstrated that aggressive treatment of severe traumatic brain injury, which includes invasive monitoring of intracranial pressure (ICP) and decompressive craniectomy, produces better patient outcomes than less aggressive measures and is cost-effective in patients no matter their ageeven in patients 80 years of age.  <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/longevity-medicine\/is-aggressive-treatment-of-severe-traumatic-brain-injury-cost-effective.php\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"limit_modified_date":"","last_modified_date":"","_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1246678],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-71125","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-longevity-medicine"],"modified_by":null,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71125"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=71125"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71125\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=71125"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=71125"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=71125"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}