• Kamran A Khan, Stavros Petrou, Michael Smyth, Gavin D Perkins, Anne-Marie Slowther, Terry Brown, and Jason J Madan.
• Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, United Kingdom. Electronic address: k.a.khan@warwick.ac.uk.
• Resuscitation. 2024 Aug 1; 201: 110274110274.

AimTo compare the cost-effectiveness of termination-of-resuscitation (TOR) rules for patients transported in cardiac arrest.MethodsThe economic analyses evaluated cost-effectiveness of alternative TOR rules for OHCA from a National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS) perspective over a lifetime horizon. A systematic review was used to identify the different TOR rules included in the analyses. Data from the OHCAO outcomes registry, trial data and published literature were used to compare outcomes for the different rules identified. The economic analyses estimated discounted NHS and PSS costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for each TOR rule, based on which incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated.ResultsThe systematic review identified 33 TOR rules and the economic analyses assessed the performance of 29 of these TOR rules plus current practice. The most cost-effective strategies were the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) termination of resuscitation rule (ICER of £8,111), the Korean Cardiac Arrest Research Consortium 2 (KOC 2) termination of resuscitation rule (ICER of £17,548), and the universal Basic Life Support (BLS) termination of resuscitation rule (ICER of £19,498,216). The KOC 2 TOR rule was cost-effective at the established cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000-£30,000 per QALY.ConclusionThe KOC 2 rule is the most cost-effective at established cost-effectiveness thresholds used to inform health care decision-making in the UK. Further research on economic implications of TOR rules is warranted to support constructive discussion on implementing TOR rules.Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

18 keywords...

hide…