The cost-effectiveness of a mechanical compression device in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of LUCAS-2, a mechanical device for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) as compared to manual chest compressions in adults with non-traumatic, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Methods: We analysed patient-level data from a large, pragmatic, multi-centre trial linked to administrative secondary care data from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) to measure healthcare resource use, costs and outcomes in both arms. A within-trial analysis using quality adjusted life years derived from the EQ-5D-3L was conducted at 12-month follow-up and results were extrapolated to the lifetime horizon using a decision-analytic model. Results: 4471 patients were enrolled in the trial (1652 assigned to the LUCAS-2 group, 2819 assigned to the control group). At 12 months, 89 (5%) patients survived in the LUCAS-2 group and 175 (6%) survived in the manual CPR group. In the vast majority of analyses conducted, both within-trial and by extrapolation of the results over a lifetime horizon, manual CPR dominates LUCAS-2. In other words, patients in the LUCAS-2 group had poorer health outcomes (i.e. lower QALYs) and incurred higher health and social care costs. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that the use of the mechanical chest compression device LUCAS-2 represents poor value for money when compared to standard manual chest compression in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest