Literature DB >> 22052901

Cost-effectiveness analysis of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy.

Joseph G Rogers1, Robin R Bostic, Kuo B Tong, Rob Adamson, Mark Russo, Mark S Slaughter.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have become the dominant devices for mechanical circulatory support, but their cost-effectiveness is undetermined. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of continuous-flow devices for destination therapy versus optimal medical management in advanced heart failure and compared the results with previous estimates for pulsatile devices. METHODS AND
RESULTS: A Markov model was developed to assess cost-effectiveness. Survival, hospitalization rates, quality of life, and cost data were obtained for advanced heart failure patients treated medically or with a continuous-flow LVAD. Rates of clinical outcomes for all patients were obtained from clinical trial databases. Medicare prospective payments were used to estimate the cost of heart failure admissions. The cost of LVAD implantation was obtained prospectively from hospital claims within a clinical trial. Compared with medically managed patients, continuous-flow LVAD patients had higher 5-year costs ($360 407 versus $62 856), quality-adjusted life years (1.87 versus 0.37), and life years (2.42 versus 0.64). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the continuous-flow device was $198 184 per quality-adjusted life year and $167 208 per life year. This equates to a 75% reduction in incremental cost-effectiveness ratio compared with the $802 700 per quality-adjusted life year for the pulsatile-flow device. The results were most sensitive to the cost of device implantation, long-term survival, cost per rehospitalization, and utility associated with patients' functional status.
CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness associated with continuous-flow LVADs for destination therapy has improved significantly relative to the pulsatile flow devices. This change is explained by significant improvements in survival and functional status and reduction in implantation costs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22052901     DOI: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.111.962951

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circ Heart Fail        ISSN: 1941-3289            Impact factor:   8.790


  33 in total

Review 1.  Contemporary strategies in the diagnosis and management of heart failure.

Authors:  Shannon M Dunlay; Naveen L Pereira; Sudhir S Kushwaha
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2014-03-29       Impact factor: 7.616

2.  Reading a cost-effectiveness or decision analysis study: Five things to consider.

Authors:  Kate C Young; Adam G Kelly; Robert G Holloway
Journal:  Neurol Clin Pract       Date:  2013-10

3.  VAD therapy 20/20: moving beyond the myopic view of a nascent therapy.

Authors:  Adam D DeVore; Carmelo A Milano; Joseph G Rogers
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2014-11

4.  The Effect of Total Cost Information on Consumer Treatment Decisions: An Experimental Survey.

Authors:  Regina Kwon; Larry A Allen; Laura D Scherer; Jocelyn S Thompson; Madiha F Abdel-Maksoud; Colleen K McIlvennan; Daniel D Matlock
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 5.  An updated review of cardiac devices in heart failure.

Authors:  C Murphy; H Zafar; F Sharif
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2017-03-25       Impact factor: 1.568

Review 6.  Left ventricular assist devices-current state and perspectives.

Authors:  Anatol Prinzing; Ulf Herold; Anna Berkefeld; Markus Krane; Rüdiger Lange; Bernhard Voss
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 7.  Frailty and the selection of patients for destination therapy left ventricular assist device.

Authors:  Kelsey M Flint; Daniel D Matlock; Joann Lindenfeld; Larry A Allen
Journal:  Circ Heart Fail       Date:  2012-03-01       Impact factor: 8.790

8.  Cost-Effectiveness of Remote Cardiac Monitoring With the CardioMEMS Heart Failure System.

Authors:  Jordana K Schmier; Kevin L Ong; Gregg C Fonarow
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  2017-03-08       Impact factor: 2.882

9.  The impact of insurance and socioeconomic status on outcomes for patients with left ventricular assist devices.

Authors:  Sakima A Smith; Ayesha K Hasan; Philip F Binkley; Randi E Foraker
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2014-05-09       Impact factor: 2.192

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.