Cost-Effectiveness of a Shock Team Approach in Refractory Cardiogenic Shock

Background: Multidisciplinary Shock Teams have improved clinical outcomes for cardiogenic shock, but their implementation costs have not been studied. This study's objective was to compare costs between patients treated with and without a Shock Team and determine if the team's implementation is cost-effective compared with standard of care.

Methods: We examined patients with refractory cardiogenic shock treated with or without a Shock Team at a tertiary academic hospital from 2009 to 2018. Real-world hospital data were used to compare costs and outcomes, including survival at discharge, 1-year survival, and quality-adjusted life years gained at 1 year. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated over a 1-year time horizon, with parameter uncertainty evaluated through probabilistic sensitivity analysis using 1000 second-order Monte Carlo simulations.

Results: The study involved 244 patients, with 123 treated by the Shock Team and 121 receiving standard of care. Patients were predominantly male (77.5%), with a mean age of 58 (18-92) years. The Shock Team approach improved survival rates at hospital discharge and 1-year follow-up (61.0% versus 47.9%; P=0.04 and 55.0% versus 40.5%; P=0.03, respectively). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for increases in survival probability at discharge for the multidisciplinary Shock Team compared with standard of care was $102 088. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for increases in survival probability at 1-year was estimated at $96 152 and at $127 862 per 1 quality-adjusted life year gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis estimates showed that the Shock Team was cost-effective in the majority of simulations using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000, while it was also dominant in almost one-third of the simulations.

Conclusions: The Shock Team approach for treating refractory cardiogenic shock may be a cost-effective alternative to traditional standard of care. These findings can help prioritize the implementation of Shock Team initiatives to further improve cardiogenic shock outcomes.