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

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 costeffectiveness 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 postOHCA were 3570 pound and 3413 pound in the i-gel and TI groups respectively (mean difference 157 pound, 95% CI -270 pound to 583) pound. 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.

Automated summary

The study compared the cost-effectiveness of using i-gel and TI as the initial AAM strategy for non-traumatic OHCA patients, showing that there were minimal differences in QALYs and costs between the two methods.