Cost-effectiveness and clinical outcomes comparison between noninvasive ventilation and high-flow nasal cannula use in patients with multiple rib fractures

Authors

Junsik Kwon, From the Comparative Effectiveness and Clinical Outcomes Research Center (J.K., T.A.-A., B.Z., B.C.C., M.F., R.C.), Riverside University Health System, Moreno Valley, California; Department of Trauma Surgery (J.K.), Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea; Riverside University Health System - Public Health (T.P.), Riverside County Department of Public Health; George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences (B.C.C.), Washington, DC; Division of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery (R.C.), Riverside University Health System Medical Center, Moreno Valley; and Department of Surgery (R.C.), Loma Linda University School of Medicine, Loma Linda, California.
Timothy Allison-Aipa
Thomas Patton
Bishoy Zakhary
Bruno C. Coimbra
Matthew Firek
Raul Coimbra

Document Type

Journal Article

Publication Date

4-15-2025

Journal

The journal of trauma and acute care surgery

DOI

10.1097/TA.0000000000004629

Keywords

Multiple rib fractures; cost-effectiveness; high-flow nasal cannula; noninvasive ventilation; respiratory insufficiency; trauma

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients with multiple rib fractures often require advanced respiratory support to prevent intubation and associated morbidity. Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) are commonly used, but direct comparisons of clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness remain limited. This study aimed to compare NIV versus HFNC using a large, nationwide US database. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the 2020-2021 National Inpatient Sample database to identify adult trauma patients (18-89 years) with two or more rib fractures who received either NIV or HFNC without prior intubation. To focus on isolated thoracic injuries, patients with significant injuries elsewhere (Abbreviated Injury Scale score ≥3) or who died within 24 hours were excluded. Inverse probability of treatment of weighting was used to balance patient characteristics, including demographics, comorbidities, and injury severity. Primary outcomes included mortality, tracheostomy, pulmonary complications, and intubation rates. Hospital length of stay and total costs were also assessed. Cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted with intubation avoidance as the effectiveness measure, and a willingness-to-pay threshold of US $50,000 per effectiveness unit was used. RESULTS: After adjustment, the NIV group demonstrated significantly better outcomes compared with HFNC, including lower mortality (11.4% vs. 17.0%, p = 0.007) and tracheostomy (1.2% vs. 3.1%, p = 0.006), and fewer pulmonary complications. Although intubation rates were not statistically different (12.0% vs. 15.6%, p = 0.085), the HFNC group had longer length of stay (13 vs. 10 days, p < 0.001) and incurred higher costs (US $42,505 vs. US $32,024, p < 0.001). Cost-effectiveness analysis revealed that NIV dominated HFNC, yielding better outcomes at lower costs. CONCLUSION: Among patients with multiple rib fractures, NIV yielded superior clinical outcomes, shortened hospital stays, and reduced costs compared with HFNC. These findings suggest that NIV may be a more cost-effective and clinically advantageous choice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

APA Citation

Kwon, Junsik; Allison-Aipa, Timothy; Patton, Thomas; Zakhary, Bishoy; Coimbra, Bruno C.; Firek, Matthew; and Coimbra, Raul, "Cost-effectiveness and clinical outcomes comparison between noninvasive ventilation and high-flow nasal cannula use in patients with multiple rib fractures" (2025). GW Authored Works. Paper 7050.
https://hsrc.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/gwhpubs/7050

Department

School of Medicine and Health Sciences Student Works