Cost-utility of point-of-care viscoelastic hemostatic assays in the management of bleeding during cardiac surgery: A single-blinded prospective multicenter stepped wedge cluster randomized trial in French context
- PMID: 41274376
- DOI: 10.1016/j.accpm.2025.101704
Cost-utility of point-of-care viscoelastic hemostatic assays in the management of bleeding during cardiac surgery: A single-blinded prospective multicenter stepped wedge cluster randomized trial in French context
Abstract
Background: The IMOTEC study aims to determine whether a point-of-care viscoelastic hemostatic assay (VHA)-guided algorithm is cost-effective for the management of ongoing bleeding.
Methods: Stepped wedge cluster randomized trial, patient blinded, conducted at 16 French academic cardiac surgery centers from 01/2017 to 02/2020. Adults undergoing elective or urgent cardiac surgery with ongoing bleeding were enrolled during 2 successive inclusion periods: 1) transfusion guided on standard hemostasis tests (control period), and 2) transfusion using a VHA-guided algorithm. The primary objective was to estimate the efficiency of VHA based on the 1-year incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR, primary outcome). Secondary outcomes included transfusion, postoperative complications, duration of stay in-hospital, reintervention, and mortality.
Results: 1095 patients were randomized, and 1044 (95.3%) were analyzed. The mean utility was 0.60 (±0.30) in the VHA vs. 0.61 (±0.30) in the control period, adjusted difference, -0.01 [95% CI, -0.09 to 0.07]. The ICUR did not suggest that the VHA-guided algorithm was cost-effective. One-year mortality was 12.0% for VHA and 10.9% for control, Hazard Ratio, 1.69 [95% CI, 0.98-2.89], P = .06. The frequency of plasma and platelet transfusions was significantly lower in the VHA compared to the control period (respectively, 48.8% vs. 72.4%, P < 0.0001 and 52.3% vs. 74.1%, P = .0002), whereas fibrinogen administration was more frequent in the VHA period (58.4% vs. 47.0%, P = .002). The median in-hospital length of stay was significantly shorter in the VHA vs. control period: 11.0 days (8.0-18.0) vs. 14.0 (9.0-22.0), P = .02.
Conclusions: The ICUR did not suggest that VHA was cost-effective in cardiac surgery patients with ongoing bleeding, compared with standard tests.
Trial registration: Clinical trial submission: November 2, 2016 Registry name: Cost-Utility Analysis of Management of Peri Operative Hemorrhage Following Cardiac Surgery With Cardiopulmonary Bypass (IMOTEC) ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02972684 URL registry: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02972684.
Keywords: Cardiac surgery; Ongoing bleeding; Patient blood management; Severe hemorrhage; Transfusion-saving strategy; Viscoelastic hemostatic assays.
Copyright © 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of competing interest Dr. Vourc’h declares personal fees from MSD, Pfizer, Baxter, and Grants from Fisher Paykel outside the submitted work. Pr. Rozec declares having received personal fees from LFB, Aguettant, Nordic Pharma, i-Sep. Dr. Rigal declares consulting fees from Vifor, research grants from i-Sep, congress support from Edwards and Fresenius outside the submitted work. Dr. Karim Lakhal declares having received consulting fees from Philips and congress registration support from Pfizer, Advanz Pharma/Correvio, and AOP Health. Dr. Diane Zlotnik declares personal fees from i-Sep and LFB. Dr Veronique Wurtz declares personal fees from Stago. Other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest involving the work under consideration for publication.
Associated data
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
