Skip to main content
. 2015 Sep 30;10(1):3–17. doi: 10.1177/1753465815603659

Table 4.

Summary of sensitivity analyses.

Scenario Description Budget impact per patient (US$) Change versus base case (absolute/%) Reference
Base case See Table 2 −7886
1. Efficacy NAVA: 0% −8160 274/3% Terzi et al. [2010]
PSV: 32%
2. Efficacy NAVA: 0% 9257 1371/17% Colomboet al. [2008]
PSV: 36%
3. Efficacy NAVA: 0% −11,451 3565/45% De la Olivaet al. [2012]
PSV: 44%
4. Efficacy NAVA: 9% −15,427 7541/96% Moerer et al. [2008]
PSV: 67.5%
5. Efficacy NAVA: 7% −18,855 10,969/139% Spahija et al. [2010]
PSV: 78%
6. Efficacy NAVA: 0% −19,952 12,066/153% Cammarotaet al. [2011]
PSV: 75%
7. Catheter cost US$700 −7271 −615/–8%
8. Catheter cost US$1050 −6656 −1230/–16%
9. Catheter cost US$1400 −6041 −1845/–23%
10. Frequency of catheter switch Every third day −7593 −239/–4%
11. Frequency of catheter switch Every day −6329 −1557/–20%
12. Daily ICU cost min, Sweden NU Trollhättan: US$2461 −3563 −4323/–55% Swedish ICU register
13. Daily ICU cost median, Sweden Kristianstad/Gävle: US$4370 −6805 −1081/–14% Swedish ICU register
14. Daily ICU cost max, Sweden K Solna CIVA: US$5516 −8750 864/11% Swedish ICU register
15. Days on MV 3.7 days −4579 −3307/–42% Swedish ICU register
16. Days on MV 1.45 days −1532 −6354/–81% Hypothetical

ICU, intensive care unit; MV, mechanical ventilation; NAVA, Neurally Adjusted Ventilator Assist; PSV, pressure support ventilation.