Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2009 Oct 19.
Published in final edited form as: Crit Care Med. 2008 Mar;36(3):706–714. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0B013E3181544248

Table 2.

Incremental Cost-effectiveness Ratios

Scenario Costs Increase
in Cost
MVFD Gain in
MVFD
MV-Free
Survival
Gain in
MV-Free
Survival
Incremental Cost-Effectiveness
of Regimen
$ $ $/MVFD Gained $/MVFD Alive
Gained
Base-case analysis
Probabilistic analysis (crossover to lorazepam)*
Lorazepam 52,009 12.183 11.563 Propofol dominates lorazepam
in 91% of simulations
Propofol 45,631 (6,378) 15.917 (3.734) 14.956 (3.393)
Secondary analyses
Probabilistic analysis (crossover to midazolam)
Lorazepam 52,954 12.803 12.297 Propofol dominates lorazepam
in 92% of simulations
Propofol 44,740 (8,214) 16.172 (3.369) 15.338 (3.041)
Probabilistic analysis including midazolam
Lorazepam 55,038 12.126 11.46
Propofol 44,969 (10,069) 15.156 (3.03) 14.324 (2.864) Propofol dominates lorazepam
in 92% of simulations
Midazolam 43,908 (1,061) 15.402 0.246 14.428 0.104 Midazolam dominates lorazepam
in 94% of simulations

MVFD = mechanical ventilator-free days (days without mechanical ventilation within the 28 days following intubation), MV = mechanical ventilation. Parentheses denote negative value.

*

Assumes crossover to lorazepam for propofol intolerance and vice versa.

Assumes crossover to midazolam for propofol intolerance and to propofol for lorazepam intolerance.