| n recent years, there have been substantial advancements in the development of diferent technologies for extracorporeal
membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for in-hospital and out of hospital applications. However the efectiveness of these devices
is not clearly known. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-efectiveness of Cardiohelp compared to other
portable ECMO devices. In this systematic review, we searched Medline (via Ovid), Embase, Pubmed, Cochrane Library,
SCOPUS, CRD and NICE. Articles were assessed by two independent reviewers for eligibility and quality of the evidence.
Studies which compared Cardiohelp to other ECMO devices were included. Seven out of 1316 publication were included
in this review, three of them were clinical trials and four were observational studies. The majority of the studies had limited
quality. According to the measures of safety, Cardiohelp had safer technological features, but on the other hand, was more
complex to use. Considering the efectiveness, Cardiohelp was not statistically diferent from other technologies. Cardio-
help showed slightly better performance than Centrimag in terms of cost per patient and cost-efectiveness. However, when
clinical criteria were used to select the patients with good prognosis to administer the ECMO, incremental cost utility ratios
(ICURs) for both Cardiohelp and Centrimag were below the level of willingness-to-pay threshold. According to the meas-
ures of safety and efectiveness, ECMO with Cardiohelp was not considerably diferent from other evaluated technologies.
Moreover, ECMO with Cardiohelp or Centrimag can be considered cost-efective, provided that the patients are selected
carefully in terms of neurological outcomes. |