AIMS: Current European guidelines recommend prophylactic implantation of cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) who are not in NYHA class IV and have reasonable life expectancy. Cost and benefit implications of this recommendation have not been reported from a European perspective. METHODS AND RESULTS: Markov modelling estimated lifetime costs and effects [life years (LY) and quality-adjusted LY (QALY) gained] of prophylactic ICD implantation vs. conventional treatment, among patients with a reduced LVEF. Efficacy was estimated from a meta-analysis of mortality rates in the six primary prevention trials with inclusion criteria matching ACC/AHA/ESC Class I or IIa recommendations. Direct medical costs were estimated using Belgian national references. Costs and effects were discounted at 3 and 1.5% per annum, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity and scenario analyses estimated the uncertainty around the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. An ICD implantation increased the lifetime direct costs by euro 46,413. Estimated mean LY/QALY gained were 1.88/1.57, respectively. Probabilistic analysis estimated mean lifetime cost per QALY gained as euro 31,717 (95% CI: euro 19,760-euro 61,316). Cost-effectiveness was influenced most by ICD efficacy, time to replacement, utility, and patient age at implantation. CONCLUSION: In a European healthcare setting, prophylactic ICD implantation may be cost-effective if current guidelines for patients with a reduced LVEF are followed.
AIMS: Current European guidelines recommend prophylactic implantation of cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) who are not in NYHA class IV and have reasonable life expectancy. Cost and benefit implications of this recommendation have not been reported from a European perspective. METHODS AND RESULTS: Markov modelling estimated lifetime costs and effects [life years (LY) and quality-adjusted LY (QALY) gained] of prophylactic ICD implantation vs. conventional treatment, among patients with a reduced LVEF. Efficacy was estimated from a meta-analysis of mortality rates in the six primary prevention trials with inclusion criteria matching ACC/AHA/ESC Class I or IIa recommendations. Direct medical costs were estimated using Belgian national references. Costs and effects were discounted at 3 and 1.5% per annum, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity and scenario analyses estimated the uncertainty around the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. An ICD implantation increased the lifetime direct costs by euro 46,413. Estimated mean LY/QALY gained were 1.88/1.57, respectively. Probabilistic analysis estimated mean lifetime cost per QALY gained as euro 31,717 (95% CI: euro 19,760-euro 61,316). Cost-effectiveness was influenced most by ICD efficacy, time to replacement, utility, and patient age at implantation. CONCLUSION: In a European healthcare setting, prophylactic ICD implantation may be cost-effective if current guidelines for patients with a reduced LVEF are followed.
Authors: Lidia García-Pérez; Pilar Pinilla-Domínguez; Antonio García-Quintana; Eduardo Caballero-Dorta; F Javier García-García; Renata Linertová; Iñaki Imaz-Iglesia Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2014-10-17
Authors: T Smith; P F van Dessel; D A M J Theuns; A Muskens-Heemskerk; R T van Domburg; A A Wilde; L Jordaens Journal: Neth Heart J Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 2.380
Authors: Joachim Seegers; Pascal Muñoz Expósito; Lars Lüthje; Thomas Fischer; Matthias Lueken; Hannes Wenk; Samuel T Sossalla; Gerd Hasenfuss; Markus Zabel Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2015-08-08 Impact factor: 1.900