IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ticagrelor Removal by CytoSorb® in Patients Requiring Emergent or Urgent Cardiac Surgery: A UK-Based Cost-Utility Analysis


  • Mehdi Javanbakht

    (Optimax Access UK Ltd, Market Access Consultancy
    University of Southampton Science Park)

  • Miranda Trevor

    (Newcastle University)

  • Mohsen Rezaei Hemami

    (University of Exeter)

  • Kazem Rahimi

    (University of Oxford)

  • Michael Branagan-Harris

    (University of Southampton Science Park)

  • Fabian Degener

    (CytoSorbents Europe GmbH)

  • Daniel Adam

    (CytoSorbents Europe GmbH)

  • Franziska Preissing

    (CytoSorbents Europe GmbH)

  • Jörg Scheier

    (CytoSorbents Europe GmbH)

  • Suzanne F. Cook

    (CERobs Consulting LLC)

  • Eric Mortensen

    (CytoSorbents Corporation)


Background Acute coronary syndrome patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy who need emergent or urgent cardiac surgery are at high risk of major bleeding, which can impair postoperative outcomes. CytoSorb®, a blood purification technology based on adsorbent polymer, has been demonstrated to remove ticagrelor from blood during on-pump cardiac surgery. Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost utility of intraoperative removal of ticagrelor using CytoSorb versus usual care among patients requiring emergent or urgent cardiac surgery in the UK. Methods A de novo decision analytic model, based on current treatment pathways, was developed to estimate the short- and long-term costs and outcomes. Results from randomised clinical trials and national standard sources such as National Health Service (NHS) reference costs were used to inform the model. Costs were estimated from the NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) explored the uncertainty surrounding the input parameters. Results In emergent cardiac surgery, intraoperative removal of ticagrelor using CytoSorb was less costly (£12,933 vs. £16,874) and more effective (0.06201vs. 0.06091 quality-adjusted life-years) than cardiac surgery without physiologic clearance of ticagrelor over a 30-day time horizon. For urgent cardiac surgery, the use of CytoSorb was less costly than any of the three comparators—delaying surgery for natural washout without adjunctive therapy, adjunctive therapy with short-acting antiplatelet agents, or adjunctive therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin. Results from the PSAs showed that CytoSorb has a high probability of being cost saving (99% in emergent cardiac surgery and 53–77% in urgent cardiac surgery, depending on the comparators). Cost savings derive from fewer transfusions of blood products and re-thoracotomies, and shorter stay in the hospital/intensive care unit. Conclusions The implementation of CytoSorb as an intraoperative intervention for patients receiving ticagrelor undergoing emergent or urgent cardiac surgery is a cost-saving strategy, yielding improvement in perioperative and postoperative outcomes and decreased health resource use.

Suggested Citation

  • Mehdi Javanbakht & Miranda Trevor & Mohsen Rezaei Hemami & Kazem Rahimi & Michael Branagan-Harris & Fabian Degener & Daniel Adam & Franziska Preissing & Jörg Scheier & Suzanne F. Cook & Eric Mortensen, 2020. "Ticagrelor Removal by CytoSorb® in Patients Requiring Emergent or Urgent Cardiac Surgery: A UK-Based Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 307-319, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:4:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s41669-019-00183-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-019-00183-w

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item


    Blog mentions

    As found by, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 1st June 2020
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2020-06-01 11:00:00

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:4:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s41669-019-00183-w. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.