Skip to main content

Table 2 Effectiveness and Utility Inputsa

From: The cost-effectiveness of albumin in the treatment of decompensated cirrhosis in Germany, Italy, and Spain

Treatment

Hyponatremia Incidence (%)

Renal Impairment Incidence (%)

HE Incidence (%)

Hospital Length of Stay (Days)

Mortality (%)

Utility Values

LVP after ascites

 

 Albumin

8.8% [6]

7.2% [5]

3.1% [5]

2.1% [5]

 Gelatin

22.6% [6]

10.1% [5]

5.1% [5]

6.1% [5]

 Saline

14.3% [20]

8.6% [20]

5.4% [5]b

2.9% [20]

 No fluid

16.5% [6]

11.3% [34]

5.7% [34]

3.8% [34]

 Decompensated cirrhosis

0.74

 Decompensated cirrhosis with encephalopathy

0.55

SBP

 

 Antibiotics + albumin

10% [7]e

14 [7]e

22% [7]

 Antibiotics alone

33% [7]e

13 [7]e

41% [7]

 Spontaneous  bacterial peritonitis

0.45

HRS

 

 Albumin + terlipressin

29.6% [8]c

40.7% [8]

 Albumin + noradrenaline

52.4% [23]c

52.4% [23]

 Vasoconstrictor aloned

75.0% [22]c

87.5% [22]h

 Decompensated cirrhosis

0.45

  1. aData reflect the rates of various complications as reported in the literature
  2. bThe rate of HE in patients treated with saline was assumed to be the same as the HE rate for those treated with dextran
  3. cThe data reflect the percentage of patients without resolution of their renal impairment
  4. dThe effectiveness inputs for vasoconstrictor alone are based on terlipressin results
  5. Key: HE hepatic encephalopathy, HRS hepatorenal syndrome, LVP large-volume paracentesis, SBP spontaneous bacterial peritonitis