On the “20 QALY per application” figure, I have some questions:
What fraction of heart attack patients, if saved in this way, will not have another lethal heart attack within the next few years?
What fraction of such patients are already very old and suffering from other health problems?
To what extent might a nonlethal heart attack still lead to vulnerability and muscle weakness later on, making someone more susceptible to death?
I wouldn’t be surprised if the true number were more like 2 QALY/application rather than 20 (still not a bad thing to try at that point if you think the other numbers fit; just wanted to call out this particular issue).
Sure, this was just me taking a guess because I needed a figure to work out the numbers. I expect better analysis, if this is of interest to someone, might produce a different figure and different conclusion about cost effectiveness.
On the “20 QALY per application” figure, I have some questions:
What fraction of heart attack patients, if saved in this way, will not have another lethal heart attack within the next few years?
What fraction of such patients are already very old and suffering from other health problems?
To what extent might a nonlethal heart attack still lead to vulnerability and muscle weakness later on, making someone more susceptible to death?
I wouldn’t be surprised if the true number were more like 2 QALY/application rather than 20 (still not a bad thing to try at that point if you think the other numbers fit; just wanted to call out this particular issue).
Sure, this was just me taking a guess because I needed a figure to work out the numbers. I expect better analysis, if this is of interest to someone, might produce a different figure and different conclusion about cost effectiveness.