Antonio Lopez-Villegas1,2, Daniel Catalan-Matamoros3,4, Emilio Robles-Musso5, Rafael Bautista-Mesa6, Salvador Peiro7. 1. 1 Social Involvement of Critical and Emergency Medicine, CTS-609 Research Group, Hospital de Poniente, Almeria, Spain. 2. 2 Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Tromsø, Tromsø. Norway. 3. 3 Department of Journalism and Communication, University Carlos III of Madrid, Madrid, Spain. 4. 4 Health Sciences CTS-451 Research Group, University of Almeria, Almería, Spain. 5. 5 Intensive Care Unit, Hospital de Poniente, Almeria, Spain. 6. 6 Management Unit, Hospital de Poniente, Almeria, Spain. 7. 7 Health Services Research Unit, FISABIO-PUBLIC HEALTH, Valencia, Spain.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Few studies have confirmed the cost-saving of telemonitoring of users with pacemakers (PMs). The purpose of this controlled, non-randomised, non-masked clinical trial was to perform an economic assessment of telemonitoring (TM) of users with PMs and check whether TM offers a cost-utility alternative to conventional follow-up in hospital. METHODS: Eighty-two patients implanted with an internet-based transmission PM were selected to receive either conventional follow-up in hospital ( n = 52) or TM ( n = 30) from their homes. The data were collected during 12 months while patients were being monitored. The economic assessment of the PONIENTE study was performed as per the perspectives of National Health Service (NHS) and patients. A cost-utility analysis was conducted to measure whether the TM of patients with PMs is cost-effective in terms of costs per gained quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: There was a significant cost-saving for participants in the TM group in comparison with the participants in the conventional follow-up group. From the NHS's perspective, the patients in the TM group gained 0.09 QALYs more than the patients in the conventional follow-up group over 12 months, with a cost saving of 57.64% (€46.51 versus €109.79, respectively; p < 0.001) per participant per year. In-office visits were reduced by 52.49% in the TM group. The costs related to the patient perspective were lower in the TM group than in the conventional follow-up group (€31.82 versus €73.48, respectively; p < 0.005). The costs per QALY were 61.68% higher in the in-office monitoring group. DISCUSSION: The cost-utility analysis performed in the PONIENTE study showed that the TM of users with PMs appears to be a significant cost-effective alternative to conventional follow-up in hospital.
INTRODUCTION: Few studies have confirmed the cost-saving of telemonitoring of users with pacemakers (PMs). The purpose of this controlled, non-randomised, non-masked clinical trial was to perform an economic assessment of telemonitoring (TM) of users with PMs and check whether TM offers a cost-utility alternative to conventional follow-up in hospital. METHODS: Eighty-two patients implanted with an internet-based transmission PM were selected to receive either conventional follow-up in hospital ( n = 52) or TM ( n = 30) from their homes. The data were collected during 12 months while patients were being monitored. The economic assessment of the PONIENTE study was performed as per the perspectives of National Health Service (NHS) and patients. A cost-utility analysis was conducted to measure whether the TM of patients with PMs is cost-effective in terms of costs per gained quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: There was a significant cost-saving for participants in the TM group in comparison with the participants in the conventional follow-up group. From the NHS's perspective, the patients in the TM group gained 0.09 QALYs more than the patients in the conventional follow-up group over 12 months, with a cost saving of 57.64% (€46.51 versus €109.79, respectively; p < 0.001) per participant per year. In-office visits were reduced by 52.49% in the TM group. The costs related to the patient perspective were lower in the TM group than in the conventional follow-up group (€31.82 versus €73.48, respectively; p < 0.005). The costs per QALY were 61.68% higher in the in-office monitoring group. DISCUSSION: The cost-utility analysis performed in the PONIENTE study showed that the TM of users with PMs appears to be a significant cost-effective alternative to conventional follow-up in hospital.
Authors: Antonio Lopez-Villegas; César Leal-Costa; Mercedes Perez-Heredia; Irene Villegas-Tripiana; Daniel Catalán-Matamoros Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-18 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Rafael Jesus Bautista-Mesa; Antonio Lopez-Villegas; Salvador Peiro; Daniel Catalan-Matamoros; Emilio Robles-Musso; Remedios Lopez-Liria; Cesar Leal-Costa Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2020-11-16 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Daniel Catalan-Matamoros; Antonio Lopez-Villegas; Knut Tore Lappegård; Remedios Lopez-Liria Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Daniel Catalan-Matamoros; Antonio Lopez-Villegas; Cesar Leal Costa; Rafael Bautista-Mesa; Emilio Robles-Musso; Patricia Rocamora Perez; Remedios Lopez-Liria Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-12-23 Impact factor: 3.240