John Bisognano1, John E Schneider2, Shawn Davies3, Robert L Ohsfeldt4, Elizabeth Galle5, Ivana Stojanovic5, Thomas F Deering6, JoAnn Lindenfeld7, Michael R Zile8. 1. University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA. 2. Avalon Health Economics, Morristown, NJ, USA. 3. Avalon Health Economics, Morristown, NJ, USA. Shawn.davies@avalonecon.com. 4. Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA. 5. CVRx Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA. 6. Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta, GA, USA. 7. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. 8. Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The study evaluated the cost of baroreflex activation therapy plus guideline directed therapy (BAT + GDT) compared to GDT alone for HF patients with reduced ejection fraction and New York Heart Association Class III or II (with a recent history of III). Baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) is delivered by an implantable device that stimulates the baroreceptors through an electrode attached to the outside of the carotid artery, which rebalances the autonomic nervous system to regain cardiovascular (CV) homeostasis. The BeAT-HF trial evaluated the safety and effectiveness of BAT. METHODS: A cost impact model was developed from a U.S. health care payer or integrated delivery network perspective over a 3-year period for BAT + GDT versus GDT alone. Expected costs were calculated by utilizing 6-month data from the BeAT-HF trial and existing literature. HF hospitalization rates were extrapolated based on improvement in NT-proBNP. RESULTS: At baseline the expected cost of BAT + GDT were $29,526 per patient more than GDT alone due to BAT device and implantation costs. After 3 years, the predicted cost per patient was $9521 less expensive for BAT + GDT versus GDT alone due to lower rates of significant HF hospitalizations, CV non-HF hospitalizations, and resource intensive late-stage procedures (LVADs and heart transplants) among the BAT + GDT group. CONCLUSIONS: BAT + GDT treatment becomes less costly than GDT alone beginning between years 1 and 2 and becomes less costly cumulatively between years 2 and 3, potentially providing significant savings over time. As additional BeAT-HF trial data become available, the model can be updated to show longer term effects.
BACKGROUND: The study evaluated the cost of baroreflex activation therapy plus guideline directed therapy (BAT + GDT) compared to GDT alone for HF patients with reduced ejection fraction and New York Heart Association Class III or II (with a recent history of III). Baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) is delivered by an implantable device that stimulates the baroreceptors through an electrode attached to the outside of the carotid artery, which rebalances the autonomic nervous system to regain cardiovascular (CV) homeostasis. The BeAT-HF trial evaluated the safety and effectiveness of BAT. METHODS: A cost impact model was developed from a U.S. health care payer or integrated delivery network perspective over a 3-year period for BAT + GDT versus GDT alone. Expected costs were calculated by utilizing 6-month data from the BeAT-HF trial and existing literature. HF hospitalization rates were extrapolated based on improvement in NT-proBNP. RESULTS: At baseline the expected cost of BAT + GDT were $29,526 per patient more than GDT alone due to BAT device and implantation costs. After 3 years, the predicted cost per patient was $9521 less expensive for BAT + GDT versus GDT alone due to lower rates of significant HF hospitalizations, CV non-HF hospitalizations, and resource intensive late-stage procedures (LVADs and heart transplants) among the BAT + GDT group. CONCLUSIONS:BAT + GDT treatment becomes less costly than GDT alone beginning between years 1 and 2 and becomes less costly cumulatively between years 2 and 3, potentially providing significant savings over time. As additional BeAT-HF trial data become available, the model can be updated to show longer term effects.
Authors: Jeff Voigt; M Sasha John; Andrew Taylor; Mitchell Krucoff; Matthew R Reynolds; C Michael Gibson Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: William T Abraham; Michael R Zile; Fred A Weaver; Christian Butter; Anique Ducharme; Marcel Halbach; Didier Klug; Eric G Lovett; Jochen Müller-Ehmsen; Jill E Schafer; Michele Senni; Vijay Swarup; Rolf Wachter; William C Little Journal: JACC Heart Fail Date: 2015-05-14 Impact factor: 12.035
Authors: Jiri Parenica; Jindrich Spinar; Jiri Vitovec; Petr Widimsky; Ales Linhart; Marian Fedorco; Jan Vaclavik; Roman Miklik; Marian Felsoci; Katerina Horakova; Cestmir Cihalik; Filip Malek; Lenka Spinarova; Jan Belohlavek; Jiri Kettner; Kamil Zeman; Ladislav Dušek; Jiri Jarkovsky Journal: Eur J Intern Med Date: 2012-12-07 Impact factor: 4.487
Authors: Richard W Troughton; Christopher M Frampton; Hans-Peter Brunner-La Rocca; Matthias Pfisterer; Luc W M Eurlings; Hans Erntell; Hans Persson; Christopher M O'Connor; Deddo Moertl; Patric Karlström; Ulf Dahlström; Hanna K Gaggin; James L Januzzi; Rudolf Berger; A Mark Richards; Yigal M Pinto; M Gary Nicholls Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 29.983