Objective We aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the ECMO versus mechanical ventilation through a rapid health technology assessment. Methods PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang Data, and CBM databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, meta-analyses, complete economic evaluations, and CRD database for HTA reports from inception to December 2020. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Descriptive analysis and summary were then performed. Results A total of 21 references were involved, including 2 HTA reports, 5 RCTs, 11 systematic reviews or meta-analyses, and 3 economic evaluations. The quality of the literature evidence was heterogenous, and only 2 RCTs of high quality were included for meta-analysis. The results showed that the difference of 60-day mortality between ECMO and mechanical ventilation was statistically significant (RR=0.73, 95%CI 0.57 to 0.92, P=0.007). The majority of recent meta-analysis literature showed that short-term mortality of ECMO treatment was lower than that of mechanically ventilated patients. The cost-effective literature from different countries all showed that it was cost-effective in their respective health system, however, the quality of the literature varied. Conclusions Current evidence shows that ECMO has better safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for ARDS compared with mechanical ventilation. However, it still required to be verified by high-quality studies with a long-term follow-up. Validate conclusions are needed through rigorous health technology assessments.
ObjectiveTo utilize a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of the MitraClip device for patients with severe mitral regurgitation (MR). MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang Data, CBM and the CRD databases were electronically searched to collect clinical evidence and economic evaluations on the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of the MitraClip device for patients with severe MR from inception to May 2022. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies; then, descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed. ResultsA total of 33 studies, involving 4 HTA reports, 3 RCTs, 16 systematic reviews or meta-analyses, and 10 economic evaluations were included. In the evidence comparing MitraClip and surgery, most of the literature showed that the MitraClip group had higher postoperative residual MR, fewer blood transfusion events, and fewer hospital days. We found no significant treatment effects on 30-day adverse events and mortality, and the 1-year and above survival rate. In the evidence of MitraClip versus medical therapy alone, all included studies showed that MitraClip benefited mid-term and long-term survival and reduced the incidence of subsequent cardiac hospitalizations. Economic evaluations showed that the clinical benefits were cost-effective in the setting of their health service systems. ConclusionThe available high-grade clinical evidence shows that MitraClip is effective and safe to some extent, and has cost-effectiveness compared with traditional treatment in other countries. However, the real-world effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the MitraClip need to be tested in the Chinese population and health-care setting.