Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 15, 2025

Author Spotlight: A Unique Mouse Model of Asphyxia-Induced Cardiac Arrest
Published on: April 14, 2023
Cost-effectiveness analysis of multimodal prognostication in cardiac arrest with EEG monitoring
Edilberto Amorim1, Shirley S Mo1, Sebastian Palacios2
1From Harvard Medical School (E.A., S.S.M., S.S.C., M.T.B., M.B.W.); Department of Neurology (E.A., S.S.C., M.T.B., M.B.W.), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Department of Neurology (E.A.), University of California, San Francisco; and Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (E.A., S.P.) and Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (M.M.G., W.-H.W.), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. edilbertoamorim@gmail.com mwestover@mgh.harvard.edu.
Objective:
To determine cost-effectiveness parameters for EEG monitoring in cardiac arrest prognostication.
Methods:
We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to estimate the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained by adding continuous EEG monitoring to standard cardiac arrest prognostication using the American Academy of Neurology Practice Parameter (AANPP) decision algorithm: neurologic examination, somatosensory evoked potentials, and neuron-specific enolase. We explored lifetime cost-effectiveness in a closed system that incorporates revenue back into the medical system (return) from payers who survive a cardiac arrest with good outcome and contribute to the health system during the remaining years of life. Good outcome was defined as a Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) score of 1-2 and poor outcome as CPC of 3-5.
Results:
An improvement in specificity for poor outcome prediction of 4.2% would be sufficient to make continuous EEG monitoring cost-effective (baseline AANPP specificity = 83.9%). In sensitivity analysis, the effect of increased sensitivity on the cost-effectiveness of EEG depends on the utility (u) assigned to a poor outcome. For patients who regard surviving with a poor outcome (CPC 3-4) worse than death (u = -0.34), an increased sensitivity for poor outcome prediction of 13.8% would make AANPP + EEG monitoring cost-effective (baseline AANPP sensitivity = 76.3%). In the closed system, an improvement in sensitivity of 1.8% together with an improvement in specificity of 3% was sufficient to make AANPP + EEG monitoring cost-effective, assuming lifetime return of 50% (USD $70,687).
Conclusion:
Incorporating continuous EEG monitoring into cardiac arrest prognostication is cost-effective if relatively small improvements in sensitivity and specificity are achieved.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Pulse rhythm
Conversely, an irregular pulse pattern is termed dysrhythmia, stemming from disruptions in cardiac...
Electrocardiogram
Three major waveforms are present in a typical ECG recording: the P wave, the QRS complex, and...

