Literature DB >> 16818120

Hospital costs for left ventricular assist devices for destination therapy: lower costs for implantation in the post-REMATCH era.

Leslie W Miller1, Karl E Nelson, Robin R Bostic, Kuo Tong, Mark S Slaughter, James W Long.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The use of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) as an alternative to transplant, or destination therapy (end of life support), is an increasingly important option for patients with end-stage heart failure. Prior studies have examined hospital costs for LVAD implants performed during investigational studies (e.g., REMATCH), but none has been published since that trial was completed.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 23 consecutive patients who had a HeartMate XVE pump implanted as destination therapy at 2 high-volume ventricular assist device implant centers after US Food and Drug Administration approval in October 2003. We evaluated survival to discharge during the implantation hospitalization, hospital length of stay, and hospital costs, and compared them with outcomes reported from the REMATCH (RM) trial.
RESULTS: All patients in this cohort implanted post-REMATCH (PRM) had class IV heart failure and were similar in age, gender, and nearly all other pre-implantation clinical measures to the RM subjects. Mean hospital costs for PRM patients were 40% lower than for RM patients when measured from implantation to discharge (dollar 128,084 vs dollar 210,187, p < 0.01). PRM patients who survived implantation hospitalization had 48% lower costs than those who did not survive (dollar 114,979 vs dollar 215,456, p < 0.01), a finding similar to the RM experience. PRM patients in this cohort were more likely to survive to discharge compared with RM patients (87.0% vs 67.3%, p = 0.09). Mean hospital length of stay was 25% lower in the PRM group (44 vs 33 days) but did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.50).
CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes with use of LVADs as destination therapy have improved in the post-REMATCH era, including significantly lower hospital costs as well as strong trends toward better survival to hospital discharge and shorter average length of stay.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16818120     DOI: 10.1016/j.healun.2006.03.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Heart Lung Transplant        ISSN: 1053-2498            Impact factor:   10.247


  13 in total

Review 1.  [Improvements in implantable mechanical circulatory support systems : literature overview and update].

Authors:  T Krabatsch; M Schweiger; A Stepanenko; T Drews; E Potapov; M Pasic; Y Weng; M Huebler; R Hetzer
Journal:  Herz       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 1.443

2.  Early feasibility testing and engineering development of a sutureless beating heart connector for left ventricular assist devices.

Authors:  Steven C Koenig; Jorge H Jimenez; Seth D West; Michael A Sobieski; Young Choi; Gretel Monreal; Guruprasad A Giridharan; Kevin G Soucy; Mark S Slaughter
Journal:  ASAIO J       Date:  2014 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.872

3.  Mechanical circulatory support devices as destination therapy-current evidence.

Authors:  Thomas Puehler; Stephan Ensminger; Michael Schoenbrodt; Jochen Börgermann; Erik Rehn; Kavous Hakim-Meibodi; Michiel Morshuis; Jan Gummert
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2014-09

Review 4.  Ventricular assist device use in congenital heart disease with a comparison to heart transplant.

Authors:  Jacob R Miller; Pirooz Eghtesady
Journal:  J Comp Eff Res       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 1.744

5.  Predictors of hospital length of stay after implantation of a left ventricular assist device: an analysis of the INTERMACS registry.

Authors:  William G Cotts; Edwin C McGee; Susan L Myers; David C Naftel; James B Young; James K Kirklin; Kathleen L Grady
Journal:  J Heart Lung Transplant       Date:  2014-03-01       Impact factor: 10.247

Review 6.  The financial burden of destination left ventricular assist device therapy: who and when?

Authors:  Mark C Bieniarz; Reynolds Delgado
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 2.931

7.  Orthotopic heart transplant versus left ventricular assist device: a national comparison of cost and survival.

Authors:  Daniel P Mulloy; Castigliano M Bhamidipati; Matthew L Stone; Gorav Ailawadi; Irving L Kron; John A Kern
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2012-12-13       Impact factor: 5.209

8.  Limited Utility of Tricuspid Valve Repair at the Time of Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation.

Authors:  Howard K Song; Jill M Gelow; James Mudd; Christopher Chien; Frederick A Tibayan; Kathryn Hollifield; David Naftel; James Kirklin
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2016-04-30       Impact factor: 4.330

9.  Assessing technological change in cardiothoracic surgery.

Authors:  Alexander Iribarne; Mark J Russo; Alan J Moskowitz; Deborah D Ascheim; Lawrence D Brown; Annetine C Gelijns
Journal:  Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2009

10.  Management of advanced heart failure in the elderly: ethics, economics, and resource allocation in the technological era.

Authors:  Keith M Swetz; John M Stulak; Shannon M Dunlay; Ellin F Gafford
Journal:  Cardiol Res Pract       Date:  2012-12-05       Impact factor: 1.866

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.