Cost-effectiveness of the i-gel supraglottic airway device compared to tracheal intubation during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: Findings from the AIRWAYS-2 randomised controlled trial

Abstract

Aim Optimal airway management during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is uncertain. Complications from tracheal intubation (TI) may be avoided with supraglottic airway (SGA) devices. The AIRWAYS-2 cluster randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN08256118) compared the i-gel SGA with TI as the initial advanced airway management (AAM) strategy by paramedics treating adults with non-traumatic OHCA. This paper reports the trial cost-effectiveness analysis. Methods A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis of the i-gel compared with TI was conducted, with a six-month time horizon, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services. The primary outcome measure was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), estimated using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Multilevel linear regression modelling was used to account for clustering by paramedic when combining costs and outcomes. Results 9296 eligible patients were attended by 1382 trial paramedics and enrolled in the AIRWAYS-2 trial (4410 TI, 4886 i-gel). Mean QALYs to six months were 0.03 in both groups (i-gel minus TI difference −0.0015, 95% CI –0.0059 to 0.0028). Total costs per participant up to six months post-OHCA were £3570 and £3413 in the i-gel and TI groups respectively (mean difference £157, 95% CI –£270 to £583). Based on mean difference point estimates, TI was more effective and less costly than i-gel; however differences were small and there was great uncertainty around these results. Conclusion The small differences between groups in QALYs and costs shows no difference in the cost-effectiveness of the i-gel and TI when used as the initial AAM strategy in adults with non-traumatic OHCA.