This study estimates the maximum price at which mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy is deemed cost-effective for septic shock patients and identifies parameters that are most important in making treatment decisions.

We developed a probabilistic Markov model according to the sepsis care trajectory to simulate costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of septic shock patients receiving either MSC therapy or usual care over their lifetime. We calculated the therapeutic headroom by multiplying the gains attributable to MSCs with willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold and derived the maximum reimbursable price (MRP) from the expected net monetary benefit and savings attributable to MSCs. We performed scenario analyses to assess the impact of changes to assumptions on the study findings. A value of information analysis is performed to identify parameters with greatest impact on the uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of MSC therapy.

At a WTP threshold of $50,000 per QALY, the therapeutic headroom and MRP of MSC therapy were $20,941 and $16,748, respectively; these estimates increased with the larger WTP values and the greater impact of MSCs on in-hospital mortality and hospital discharge rates. The parameters with greatest information value were MSC's impact on in-hospital mortality and the baseline septic shock in-hospital mortality.

At a common WTP of $50,000/QALY, MSC therapy is deemed to be economically attractive if its unit cost does not exceed $16,748. This ceiling price can be increased to $101,450 if the therapy significantly reduces both in-hospital mortality and increases hospital discharge rates.

Various medications and devices are available for facilitation of emergent endotracheal intubations (EETIs). The objective of this study was to survey which medications and devices are being utilized for intubation by Canadian physicians.

A clinical scenario-based survey was developed to determine which medications physicians would administer to facilitate EETI, their first choice of intubation device, and backup strategy should their first choice fail. The survey was distributed to Canadian emergency medicine (EM) and intensive care unit (ICU) physicians using web-based and postal methods. Physicians were asked questions based on three scenarios (trauma; pneumonia; heart failure) and responded using a 5-point scale ranging from “always” to “never” to capture usual practice.

The survey response rate was 50.2% (882/1,758). Most physicians indicated a Macintosh blade with direct laryngoscopy would “always/often” be their first choice of intubation device in the three scenarios (mean 85% [79%-89%]) followed by video laryngoscopy (mean 37% [30%-49%]). The most common backup device chosen was an extraglottic device (mean 59% [56%-60%]). The medications most physicians would “always/often” administer were fentanyl (mean 45% [42%-51%]) and etomidate (mean 38% [25%-50%]). EM physicians were more likely than ICU physicians to paralyze patients for EETI (adjusted odds ratio 3.40; 95% CI 2.90-4.00).

Most EM and ICU physicians utilize direct laryngoscopy with a Macintosh blade as a primary device for EETI and an extraglottic device as a backup strategy. This survey highlights variation in Canadian practice patterns for some aspects of intubation in critically ill patients.