80Chapter 5severely ill newborns—as mentioned in Section 5.1 above. Our study in patientswith CDH or MAS corroborates these findings. We consider it unlikely that theimproved survival as observed in our study is due to other factors than theapplication of ECMO. Of course, treatment protocols may have changed, since thisstudy included a long observation period. We could not eliminate possiblefavorable effects due to other factors, in fact any technologic advance in neonatalmedicine other than ECMO. Therefore, our study using historical controls may bebiased toward improved survival rates in the most recent group studied. In thehypothetical situation that ECMO would have never existed, survival rates wouldnow most likely have been better than the rates reported by studies done in thepast, with a predicted mortality approaching 80%. Consider, for example, thatthere were 33 deaths in the 54 patients with CDH or MAS in the conventionalmanagement group of the UK Collaborative ECMO Trial (61%). 16 However, thesurvival improvement found in this study is too large to be explained by newtreatment advancements other than ECMO. After all, new therapies such asexogenous surfactant therapy, high-frequency oscillatory ventilation, and iNO—and especially its combined use—have never been proven at this stage to haveconvincing effects on survival rates in critically ill infants in respiratory failure, asvariable outcome data have been reported. 59-65 Certainly for patients with CDH,the optimal treatment modality remains a matter of discussion.The use of the new adjuvant therapies mentioned in the preceding paragraph,though not on their own the panacea for the high mortality, may lead to a declinein the need for ECMO. 59,63-65 However, contrary to USA studies documenting adecreased use of ECMO in neonates with diverse causes of respiratory failuresince the first half of the 1990s, 26,54,55,66-68 we did not observe in this study adecline in the need for ECMO in patients with CDH or MAS, although the increaseseems to be diminishing. We expect that ECMO will retain its position amongst alltreatment modalities for neonatal respiratory insufficiency for patients in whomother therapies fail, though probably more for one of the two diagnostic groupsstudied here (CDH) than for the other (MAS). 69-71We would like to emphasize here that survival is of course a key outcomemeasure, but that it is also crucial to consider health-related quality of life(HRQoL). This was however beyond the scope of the current study. It isreassuring that, although such studies have been difficult to control, long-termneurodevelopmental follow-up studies found that outcomes of children treatedwith ECMO do not compare unfavorably with those found in children treated withconventional therapy. 72-74 Moreover, the UK Collaborative ECMO Trial suggested afavorable profile of morbidity when applying ECMO compared to conventionaltreatment in the UK, at the ages of both 1 year and 4 years. 75,76 However, theseresearch findings do not necessarily comfort us about the long-term HRQoLoutcomes of the patients admitted to our ECMO centers. First, in many studiesthe number of CDH patients is small, whereas the severity of CDH necessitatesdistinguishing patients with CDH from other diagnostic categories requiring
Cost-Effectiveness of Neonatal Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the Netherlands 81ECMO. 77,78 Second, follow-up studies frequently concentrate on levels ofsymptomatology and functioning, thereby failing to establish HRQoL. 79 Third,although there may be no clear evidence that the introduction of ECMO hascreated an increase in the percent of children surviving with poor long-termoutcomes, studies that compared to healthy children or did not include a controlgroup arrived—not surprisingly—at less favorable conclusions. 5,78,80,81 So,following these children into childhood and beyond still remains essential. It istherefore that we contact all Dutch ECMO patients at the ages of 5, 8, and 12years to undergo an assessment of neurologic and pulmonary sequelae, andmultidimensional HRQoL. The data at 5 years of age which we are currentlyanalyzing (recruitment rate of 88%) will provide us with representative data ofECMO patients in the Netherlands.5.5 CONCLUSIONSEspecially during its early application, considerable doubts have been expressedabout ECMO. The benefits of this therapy have always been consideredcontroversial to some extent, particularly regarding the patients with CDH. 82 Thisstudy however adds to the evidence that ECMO should not be withheld fromseverely ill newborns suffering from CDH or MAS for reasons purely of costeffectiveness.It remains for future studies to reveal whether the positiveoutcomes are maintained when long-term costs and HRQoL are included in theanalysis.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis study was supported by a grant from the Dutch Health Care Insurance Board (OG90-001).We are indebted to the staff of the neonatal intensive care units of Leiden University Hospital,Free University Hospital (Amsterdam), Academic Medical Center (Amsterdam), GroningenUniversity Hospital, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital (Utrecht), Maastricht University Hospital,and St Joseph Hospital (Veldhoven) who kindly gave us access to data on their patients. Wegratefully acknowledge previous work done by R.J.E. van Staveren, W.B. Geven, F.W.J.Hazebroek, C. Festen, and B.A. van Hout.
- Page 3:
COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF NEONATAL SURG
- Page 6 and 7:
DOCTORAL COMMITTEEPromotors:Prof.dr
- Page 9 and 10:
PUBLICATIONSChapters 2 to 7 are bas
- Page 11:
6ChapterINFORMAL CARE FOR CHILDREN
- Page 14 and 15:
2Chapter 11.1 BACKGROUND AND MOTIVA
- Page 16 and 17:
4Chapter 1provides a good overview
- Page 18 and 19:
6Chapter 1disability, and death of
- Page 21:
Introduction 9particular equity pri
- Page 25 and 26:
Introduction 1320. Oostenbrink JB,
- Page 27 and 28:
Introduction 1554. Heyman MB, Harma
- Page 29 and 30:
THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OFTREATMENT
- Page 31:
Cost-Effectiveness of Treatment for
- Page 35 and 36:
Cost-Effectiveness of Treatment for
- Page 37 and 38:
Cost-Effectiveness of Treatment for
- Page 39 and 40:
Cost-Effectiveness of Treatment for
- Page 41 and 42: Cost-Effectiveness of Treatment for
- Page 43 and 44: Cost-Effectiveness of Treatment for
- Page 45: Cost-Effectiveness of Treatment for
- Page 48 and 49: 36Chapter 3ABSTRACTBackground/Purpo
- Page 50 and 51: 38Chapter 33.2 MATERIALS AND METHOD
- Page 52 and 53: 40Chapter 3child's date of birth) a
- Page 54 and 55: 42Chapter 3diaphragm was closed (Ta
- Page 56 and 57: 44Chapter 3Total costs of treatment
- Page 58 and 59: 46Chapter 3Regarding the treatment
- Page 60 and 61: 48Chapter 3REFERENCES1. Stolk EA, P
- Page 62 and 63: 50Chapter 332. Jaillard S, Pierrat
- Page 64 and 65: 52Chapter 4ABSTRACTAims:To examine
- Page 66 and 67: 54Chapter 4Outcome measuresThe pati
- Page 68 and 69: 56Chapter 4Clearly, the symptoms st
- Page 70 and 71: 58Chapter 4The respondents did not
- Page 72 and 73: 60Chapter 4Table 4.4TAIQOL Scores o
- Page 74 and 75: 62Chapter 44.4 DISCUSSIONIn this pa
- Page 76 and 77: 64Chapter 4ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe are in
- Page 78 and 79: 66Chapter 418. Coons SJ, Rao S, Kei
- Page 80 and 81: 68Chapter 5ABSTRACTObjective:Extrac
- Page 82 and 83: 70Chapter 5treatment. 26,27 Finally
- Page 84 and 85: 72Chapter 5CostsOnly direct costs w
- Page 86 and 87: 74Chapter 5summarized in Table 5.2.
- Page 88 and 89: 76Chapter 5Table 5.3 Direct Medical
- Page 90 and 91: 78Chapter 5Figure 5.3 illustrates o
- Page 94 and 95: 82Chapter 5REFERENCES1. Bartlett RH
- Page 96 and 97: 84Chapter 533. Meinert CL: Extracor
- Page 98 and 99: 86Chapter 568. Hui TT, Danielson PD
- Page 100 and 101: 88Chapter 6ABSTRACTObjective:To inv
- Page 102 and 103: 90Chapter 6a rule. The health-relat
- Page 104 and 105: 92Chapter 6Regression analysis of h
- Page 106 and 107: 94Chapter 6that caregiving for thei
- Page 108 and 109: 96Chapter 6Table 6.5 CareQol Compar
- Page 110 and 111: 98Chapter 6children with a disabili
- Page 112 and 113: 100Chapter 6This study was of impor
- Page 114 and 115: 102Chapter 618. Poley MJ, Stolk EA,
- Page 116 and 117: 104Chapter 654. Boman KK, Viksten J
- Page 118 and 119: 106Chapter 7ABSTRACTMortality rates
- Page 120 and 121: 108Chapter 77.2 THE RELEVANCE OF CO
- Page 122 and 123: 110Chapter 7In the early 2000s, our
- Page 124 and 125: 112Chapter 7Table 7.1 Economic Eval
- Page 126 and 127: 114Chapter 7More from a policy pers
- Page 128 and 129: 116Chapter 7also expect that life-s
- Page 130 and 131: 118Chapter 7entirely justified, for
- Page 132 and 133: 120Chapter 723. Sydorak RM, Nijagal
- Page 134 and 135: 122Chapter 765. Glaser AW, Davies K
- Page 137 and 138: GENERAL DISCUSSION:A GUIDED TOURPRO
- Page 139 and 140: General Discussion: A Guided Tour P
- Page 141 and 142: General Discussion: A Guided Tour P
- Page 143 and 144:
General Discussion: A Guided Tour P
- Page 145 and 146:
General Discussion: A Guided Tour P
- Page 147 and 148:
General Discussion: A Guided Tour P
- Page 149 and 150:
General Discussion: A Guided Tour P
- Page 151:
General Discussion: A Guided Tour P
- Page 154 and 155:
142GlossaryCharge (or: tariff)A pri
- Page 156 and 157:
144Glossaryefficient one. We are th
- Page 159 and 160:
SUMMARY
- Page 161 and 162:
Summary 149mortality. Finally, it i
- Page 163 and 164:
Summary 151neonatal surgery. It is
- Page 165 and 166:
SAMENVATTING
- Page 167 and 168:
Samenvatting 155zoals directe niet-
- Page 169 and 170:
Samenvatting 157Hoofdstuk 6 gaat ve
- Page 171:
Samenvatting 159vereisen, waarvoor
- Page 174 and 175:
162AcknowledgmentsAlthough I am ind
- Page 176:
About the AuthorBorn in De Meern (N