Skip to main content

Advertisement

Volume 3 Supplement 1

ESICM LIVES 2015

Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of the high-chloride vs. low-chloride crystalloid fluids in hospitalized patients from the us third-party provider perspective

Article metrics

  • 275 Accesses

Introduction

Numerous published studies identify acute kidney injury (AKI) as an independent risk factor for developing incident chronic kidney disease (CKD), progressive CKD, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and other important non-renal outcomes with substantial public health implications. A recent meta-analysis showed that use of high-chloride crystalloids in critically ill patients was associated with a significantly higher risk of AKI (1).

Objectives

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using high-chloride vs. low-chloride crystalloid fluids in patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit (ICU) from the US third-party provider perspective.

Methods

A Markov decision model was developed to assess the overall impact of chronic dialysis progression, both in survivors of AKI and in patients without AKI exposed to high-chloride vs. low-chloride crystalloids over the life time horizon. The model inputs, including costs, utilities, and probabilities, were extracted from the published literature. The relative risk of developing AKI was obtained from the meta-analysis of published randomized clinical trials and observational studies mentioned above (n= 9 studies with a total of 229 patients). The model simulated the patient outcomes, assessing the life years gained (LYG), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and associated health care costs.

Results

The probability of patients developing AKI post fluid resuscitation with high-chloride crystalloids was 36% vs. 22% for patients receiving low-chloride crystalloids. At 90 days, the risk of patients progressing to chronic dialysis in AKI survivors receiving renal replacement therapy (RRT) was 88.04 per 100,000 patients in the high-chloride group vs. 53.68 per 100,000 patients in the low-chloride group. Overall costs were lower for patients receiving low-chloride crystalloids, translating into savings of $2,571 per patient over the lifetime horizon. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of -$3,699 per QALY indicated that low-chloride crystalloids dominate (i.e. less costly and more effective) high-chloride crystalloids and was well below the societal willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 in the US. Various sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings.

Conclusions

In a Markov-based decision model of patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit, low-chloride crystalloids were dominant (less costly and more effective) compared to high-chloride crystalloids. The overall impact on patients progressing to chronic dialysis and the associated costs were significantly reduced in survivors of AKI receiving low-chloride fluid resuscitation.

Grant Acknowledgment

This study was sponsored by Baxter.

References

  1. 1.

    Krajewski ML, Raghunathan K, Paluszkiewicz SM, Schermer CR, Shaw AD: Meta-analysis of high- versus low-chloride content in perioperative and critical care fluid resuscitation. Br J Surg. 2015 Jan, 102 (1): 24-36.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to D Makhija.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Makhija, D., Laplante, S., Beer, I. et al. Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of the high-chloride vs. low-chloride crystalloid fluids in hospitalized patients from the us third-party provider perspective. ICMx 3, A156 (2015) doi:10.1186/2197-425X-3-S1-A156

Download citation

Keywords

  • Intensive Care Unit
  • Chronic Kidney Disease
  • Renal Replacement Therapy
  • Acute Kidney Injury
  • Fluid Resuscitation