BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Letter to the Editor
©Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2026.
World J Crit Care Med. Mar 9, 2026; 15(1): 113310
Published online Mar 9, 2026. doi: 10.5492/wjccm.v15.i1.113310
Table 1 Cost-effectiveness of ventilatory strategies in the intensive care unit
Strategy
Clinical context
Reported cost-effectiveness
Interpretation
NIVAcute respiratory failure (COPD, cardiogenic pulmonary edema)Reduces intubation, LOS and costs vs invasive ventilation; favorable ICERCost-effective when applied early in selected populations
HFNCHypoxemic respiratory failure2000-3000 pounds per QALYHighly cost-effective, especially as alternative to intubation
Protective ventilation (LTVV)ARDS/ALI13031 dollars per QALY vs conventional ventilationStrong evidence of clinical and economic benefit
Prolonged mechanical ventilationPatients requiring > 21 days of MV36000-44000 dollars per QALY (Taiwan); often > 100000 dollars in elderlyLow cost-effectiveness; high resource burden
ECMOSevere ARDS43040 dollars per QALY (lifetime model)Cost-effective in highly selected severe ARDS cases
Invasive ventilation in severe strokePatients ≥ 40 years oldUp to 266470 dollars per QALYPoor cost-effectiveness; highlights limit of aggressive care
ICU admission vs ward care (severe sepsis)Severe sepsis3338 dollars per QALY in younger patients; higher in elderlyVery cost-effective, though benefit declines with advanced age
ICU admission vs ward care (pneumonia, sepsis, ARDS)Severe acute illnessVariable; ICU increases survival but at higher costReinforces need for population-based thresholds in critical care
ARDS rescue therapies (prone positioning, inhaled nitric oxide, ECMO)Refractory hypoxemiaProne positioning < 10000 dollars/QALY; nitric oxide not cost-effectiveLow-cost, evidence-based interventions maximize value