Renato Pietro Ricci1, Alfredo Vicentini2, Antonio D'Onofrio3, Antonio Sagone4, Giovanni Rovaris5, Luigi Padeletti6, Loredana Morichelli7, Antonio Fusco2, Stefano De Vivo3, Leonida Lombardi4, Alessandra Denaro8, Annalisa Pollastrelli8, Irene Colangelo9, Massimo Santini7. 1. Department of Cardiology, San Filippo Neri Hospital, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: renatopietroricci@tin.it. 2. Department of Cardiology, Casa di Cura Pederzoli, Peschiera del Garda, Italy. 3. Cardiology Division, V. Monaldi Hospital, Naples, Italy. 4. Department of Cardiology, L. Sacco Hospital, Milan, Italy. 5. Electrophysiology and Cardiac Pacing Unit, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy. 6. Department of Cardiology, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy. 7. Department of Cardiology, San Filippo Neri Hospital, Rome, Italy. 8. Clinical Department, Milan, Italy. 9. Health Economics & Reimbursement Department, St. Jude Medical Italy, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices has been demonstrated to improve outpatient clinic workflow and patient management. However, few data are available on the socioeconomic impact of RM. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the costs and benefits of RM compared with standard care (SC). METHODS: We used 12-month patient data from the Health Economics Evaluation Registry for Remote Follow-up (TARIFF) study (N = 209; RM: n = 102 (48.81%); SC: n = 107 (51.19%)). Cost comparison was made from 2 perspectives: the health care system (HCS) and patients. The use of health care resources was defined on the basis of hospital clinical folders. Out-of-pocket expenses were reported directly by patients. RESULTS: HCS perspective: The overall mean annual cost per patient in the SC group (€1044.89 ± €1990.47) was significantly higher than in the RM group (€482.87 ± €2488.10) (P < .0001), with a reduction of 53.87% being achieved in the RM group. The primary driver of cost reduction was the cost of cardiovascular hospitalizations (SC: €`886.67 ± €1979.13 vs RM: €432.34 ± €2488.10; P = .0030). Patient and caregiver perspective: The annual cost incurred by patients was significantly higher in the SC group than in the RM group (SC: €169.49 ± €189.50 vs RM: €56.87 ± €80.22; P < .0001). Patients' quality-adjusted life-years were not significantly different between the groups. Provider perspective: The total number of inhospital device follow-up visits was reduced by 58.78% in the RM group. CONCLUSION: RM of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is cost saving from the perspectives of the HCS, patients, and caregivers. Introducing appropriate reimbursements will make RM sustainable even for the provider, i.e. the hospitals which provide the service and encourage widespread adoption of RM.
BACKGROUND: Remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices has been demonstrated to improve outpatient clinic workflow and patient management. However, few data are available on the socioeconomic impact of RM. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the costs and benefits of RM compared with standard care (SC). METHODS: We used 12-month patient data from the Health Economics Evaluation Registry for Remote Follow-up (TARIFF) study (N = 209; RM: n = 102 (48.81%); SC: n = 107 (51.19%)). Cost comparison was made from 2 perspectives: the health care system (HCS) and patients. The use of health care resources was defined on the basis of hospital clinical folders. Out-of-pocket expenses were reported directly by patients. RESULTS: HCS perspective: The overall mean annual cost per patient in the SC group (€1044.89 ± €1990.47) was significantly higher than in the RM group (€482.87 ± €2488.10) (P < .0001), with a reduction of 53.87% being achieved in the RM group. The primary driver of cost reduction was the cost of cardiovascular hospitalizations (SC: €`886.67 ± €1979.13 vs RM: €432.34 ± €2488.10; P = .0030). Patient and caregiver perspective: The annual cost incurred by patients was significantly higher in the SC group than in the RM group (SC: €169.49 ± €189.50 vs RM: €56.87 ± €80.22; P < .0001). Patients' quality-adjusted life-years were not significantly different between the groups. Provider perspective: The total number of inhospital device follow-up visits was reduced by 58.78% in the RM group. CONCLUSION: RM of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is cost saving from the perspectives of the HCS, patients, and caregivers. Introducing appropriate reimbursements will make RM sustainable even for the provider, i.e. the hospitals which provide the service and encourage widespread adoption of RM.
Authors: Samuel A Shabtaie; Alan Sugrue; Nicholas Y Tan; Samuel Asirvatham; David L Hayes Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2018-10-23 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Claudius Hansen; Christian Loges; Karlheinz Seidl; Frank Eberhardt; Herbert Tröster; Krum Petrov; Gerian Grönefeld; Peter Bramlage; Frank Birkenhauer; Christian Weiss Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2018-06-28 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Francisco Javier García-Fernández; Joaquín Osca Asensi; Rafael Romero; Ignacio Fernández Lozano; José María Larrazabal; José Martínez Ferrer; Raquel Ortiz; Marta Pombo; Francisco José Tornés; Mehrard Moradi Kolbolandi Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2019-06-14 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Remedios López-Liria; Antonio López-Villegas; Terje Enebakk; Hilde Thunhaug; Knut Tore Lappegård; Daniel Catalán-Matamoros Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-06-05 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Remedios López-Liria; Antonio López-Villegas; César Leal-Costa; Salvador Peiró; Emilio Robles-Musso; Rafael Bautista-Mesa; Patricia Rocamora-Pérez; Knut Tore Lappegård; Daniel Catalán-Matamoros Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-02-23 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Eric L Wallace; Mitchell H Rosner; Mark Dominik Alscher; Claus Peter Schmitt; Arsh Jain; Francesca Tentori; Catherine Firanek; Karen S Rheuban; Jose Florez-Arango; Vivekanand Jha; Marjorie Foo; Koen de Blok; Mark R Marshall; Mauricio Sanabria; Timothy Kudelka; James A Sloand Journal: Kidney Int Rep Date: 2017-07-29