Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Emphysema
Conditions
Keywords
Endobronchial Valve, Endobronchial Valve ProcedureEBV, EBV Procedure, Endobronchial Lung Volume Reduction, Lung Volume Reduction
Brief summary
The purpose of the VENT Cost-Effectiveness Sub-Study is to gather healthcare utilization and quality of life information on patients enrolled in the VENT study in order to analyze the relative cost-effectiveness of the endobronchial valve implant procedure.
Detailed description
Therapeutic interventions in health care require the use of resources. Since these resources are limited, it is important for clinical decision-makers to have economic information in addition to safety and efficacy data. In the economic environment of health care today, the incremental costs for a new therapeutic intervention must be offset by the value associated with better outcomes such as improved health and health-related quality of life and/or lower health care utilization costs over time. Questions about the cost and effectiveness of medical care have generated considerable attention in medical outcomes research. In 1993, the Department of Health and Human Services appointed a multi-disciplinary group to recommend standards for the evaluation of health care. The panel's report suggested that standardized outcomes analyses be conducted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of medical care. These analyses require preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life. Such measures are needed in order to adjust survival time for health-related quality of life.
Interventions
DEVICEEmphasys Endobronchial Valve (EBV) Device and Procedure
Sponsors
Emphasys Medical
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
40 Years to 75 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Diagnosed by high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) with eligible heterogeneous disease distribution * Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) \< 45% predicted * Total lung capacity (TLC) \> 100% predicted * Residual volume (RV) \> 150% predicted * Post rehabilitation 6 minute walk test \> 140m * Non-smoking for 4 months
Exclusion criteria
* Prior lung transplant, lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS), median sternotomy, bullectomy or lobectomy * History of recurrent respiratory infections * Evidence of large bullae (\> 30% of either lung) in a non-target lobe * FEV1 \< 15% predicted * Diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO) \< 20% predicted
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| The cost-effectiveness ratio in the treatment group as compared to the control group at 180 days | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| The cost-effectiveness ratio in the treatment group of the study will be compared to established therapies and standards. | — |
Outcome results
None listed