Evaluating and improving the cost-effectiveness of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

Improving the Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Medical Devices

Medical devices (MDs) have distinctive features, such as incremental innovation, dynamic pricing, the learning curve and organisational impact, that need to be considered when they are evaluated. This paper investigates how MDs have been assessed in practice, in order to identify methodological gaps that need to be addressed to improve the decision-making process for their adoption. We used the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist supplemented by some additional categories to assess the quality of reporting and consideration of the distinctive features of MDs. Two case studies were considered: transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) representing an emerging technology and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) representing a mature technology. Economic evaluation studies published as journal articles or within Health Technology Assessment reports were identified through a systematic literature review. A total of 19 studies on TAVI and 41 studies on ICDs were analysed. Learning curve was considered in only 16% of studies on TAVI. Incremental innovation was more frequently mentioned in the studies of ICDs, but its impact was considered in only 34% of the cases. Dynamic pricing was the most recognised feature but was empirically tested in less than half of studies of TAVI and only 32% of studies on ICDs. Finally, organisational impact was considered in only one study of ICDs and in almost all studies on TAVI, but none of them estimated its impact. By their very nature, most of the distinctive features of MDs cannot be fully assessed at market entry. However, their potential impact could be modelled, based on the experience with previous MDs, in order to make a preliminary recommendation. Then, well-designed post-market studies could help in reducing uncertainties and make policymakers more confident to achieve conclusive recommendations. © 2017 The Authors. Health Economics published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Economic evaluations of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a systematic review

The aim of this paper was to review the cost-effectiveness studies of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) for primary or secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD). A systematic review of the literature published in English or Spanish was performed by electronically searching MEDLINE and MEDLINE in process, EMBASE, NHS-EED, and EconLit. Some keywords were implantable cardioverter defibrillator, heart failure, heart arrest, myocardial infarction, arrhythmias, syncope, sudden death. Selection criteria were the following: (1) full economic evaluations published after 1995, model-based studies or alongside clinical trials (2) that explored the cost-effectiveness of ICD with or without associated treatment compared with placebo or best medical treatment, (3) in adult patients for primary or secondary prevention of SCD because of ventricular arrhythmias. Studies that fulfilled these criteria were reviewed and data were extracted by two reviewers. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed and a narrative synthesis was prepared. In total, 24 studies were included: seven studies on secondary prevention and 18 studies on primary prevention. Seven studies were performed in Europe. For secondary prevention, the results showed that the ICD is considered cost-effective in patients with more risk. For primary prevention, the cost-effectiveness of ICD has been widely studied, but uncertainty about its cost-effectiveness remains. The cost-effectiveness ratios vary between studies depending on the patient characteristics, methodology, perspective, and national settings. Among the European studies, the conclusions are varied, where the ICD is considered cost-effective or not dependent on the study.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators for the treatment of arrhythmias and cardiac resynchronisation therapy for the treatment of heart failure: systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

This assessment updates and expands on two previous technology assessments that evaluated implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for arrhythmias and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) for heart failure (HF).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ICDs in addition to optimal pharmacological therapy (OPT) for people at increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) as a result of ventricular arrhythmias despite receiving OPT; to assess CRT with or without a defibrillator (CRT-D or CRT-P) in addition to OPT for people with HF as a result of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and cardiac dyssynchrony despite receiving OPT; and to assess CRT-D in addition to OPT for people with both conditions.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic resources including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception to November 2012. Additional studies were sought from reference lists, clinical experts and manufacturers' submissions to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

REVIEW METHODS

Inclusion criteria were applied by two reviewers independently. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second. Data were synthesised through narrative review and meta-analyses. For the three populations above, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing (1) ICD with standard therapy, (2) CRT-P or CRT-D with each other or with OPT and (3) CRT-D with OPT, CRT-P or ICD were eligible. Outcomes included mortality, adverse events and quality of life. A previously developed Markov model was adapted to estimate the cost-effectiveness of OPT, ICDs, CRT-P and CRT-D in the three populations by simulating disease progression calculated at 4-weekly cycles over a lifetime horizon.

RESULTS

A total of 4556 references were identified, of which 26 RCTs were included in the review: 13 compared ICD with medical therapy, four compared CRT-P/CRT-D with OPT and nine compared CRT-D with ICD. ICDs reduced all-cause mortality in people at increased risk of SCD, defined in trials as those with previous ventricular arrhythmias/cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction (MI) > 3 weeks previously, non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (depending on data included) or ischaemic/non-ischaemic HF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 35%. There was no benefit in people scheduled for coronary artery bypass graft. A reduction in SCD but not all-cause mortality was found in people with recent MI. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from £14,231 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) to £29,756 per QALY for the scenarios modelled. CRT-P and CRT-D reduced mortality and HF hospitalisations, and improved other outcomes, in people with HF as a result of LVSD and cardiac dyssynchrony when compared with OPT. The rate of SCD was lower with CRT-D than with CRT-P but other outcomes were similar. CRT-P and CRT-D compared with OPT produced ICERs of £27,584 per QALY and £27,899 per QALY respectively. The ICER for CRT-D compared with CRT-P was £28,420 per QALY. In people with both conditions, CRT-D reduced the risk of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalisation, and improved other outcomes, compared with ICDs. Complications were more common with CRT-D. Initial management with OPT alone was most cost-effective (ICER £2824 per QALY compared with ICD) when health-related quality of life was kept constant over time. Costs and QALYs for CRT-D and CRT-P were similar. The ICER for CRT-D compared with ICD was £27,195 per QALY and that for CRT-D compared with OPT was £35,193 per QALY.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations of the model include the structural assumptions made about disease progression and treatment provision, the extrapolation of trial survival estimates over time and the assumptions made around parameter values when evidence was not available for specific patient groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In people at risk of SCD as a result of ventricular arrhythmias and in those with HF as a result of LVSD and cardiac dyssynchrony, the interventions modelled produced ICERs of < £30,000 per QALY gained. In people with both conditions, the ICER for CRT-D compared with ICD, but not CRT-D compared with OPT, was < £30,000 per QALY, and the costs and QALYs for CRT-D and CRT-P were similar. A RCT comparing CRT-D and CRT-P in people with HF as a result of LVSD and cardiac dyssynchrony is required, for both those with and those without an ICD indication. A RCT is also needed into the benefits of ICD in non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy in the absence of dyssynchrony.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO number CRD42012002062.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The cost effectiveness of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a systematic review of economic evaluations

BACKGROUND

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is the most common cause of death in developed countries, with more than 3 million people dying yearly. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are considered to be an effective treatment in the primary and secondary prevention of SCD; however, their cost is considerable and this poses questions regarding whether they are worth the investment relative to less expensive pharmacotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review is to investigate existing evidence regarding the cost effectiveness of ICD therapy and to identify the key drivers of cost effectiveness, for the purpose of informing interested policy and decision makers.

METHODOLOGY

A systematic review of the literature concerning the cost effectiveness of ICDs was undertaken. Electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane and Health Economic Evaluations Database were searched based on appropriate terms and their combinations. Economic evaluation studies that examined the cost effectiveness of ICDs were selected and 34 were included for evaluation.

RESULTS

Findings from the present analysis show that ICD therapy, in properly selected patients who are at high risk of sudden cardiac death, is associated with similar or better cost-effectiveness ratios compared with other well accepted conventional treatments. The cost effectiveness of ICDs is influenced by several factors, including ICD efficacy and safety, impact on patient quality of life, device original implantation cost, frequency and cost of battery replacement, patient demographics and risk profile and analysis time horizon.

CONCLUSION

ICDs may represent a cost-effective option relative to pharmacotherapy in appropriately selected patient groups. The cost-effectiveness ratios appear to be at acceptable and comparable levels to other established treatments in cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular diseases. However, cost effectiveness is highly related to several factors and hence economic efficiency is highly dependent on conditions that need to be fulfilled for each individual case in medical practice. The aforementioned factors and technological advances imply that to ensure cost-effective use of ICD therapy, continuous research is needed.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter defibrillators for arrhythmias: a systematic review and economic evaluation

OBJECTIVES

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) for arrhythmias was assessed.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature of systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials that reported mortality outcomes associated with implantable cardioverter defibrillators compared with antiarrhythmic drug therapy in people at risk of sudden cardiac death due to arrhythmias was undertaken. Economic evaluations were also sought. Inclusion criteria, data extraction, and quality assessment were undertaken by standard methodology. A decision analytic model was constructed using best available evidence to determine cost-effectiveness in a UK setting.

RESULTS

Eight randomized controlled trials, two systematic reviews, and a meta-analysis met the inclusion criteria and were of variable quality. Evidence suggests that ICDs reduce mortality in both secondary and primary prevention, although the magnitude of benefit depends on baseline risk for sudden cardiac death. Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year ranged from 52,000 UK pounds ($98,000) to over 200,000 UK pounds ($379,000), depending on mortality risk and assumptions made.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that ICDs reduce total mortality but may be cost-effective only in some subgroups of patients at high risk of ventricular arrhythmias. Further research is needed on risk stratification of patients in whom ICDs are most likely to be clinically and cost-effective.

Estimating mean hospital cost as a function of length of stay and patient characteristics

Statistical models have been used to assess the influence of clinical and demographic factors on hospital charge and length of stay (LOS). Hospital costs constitute a significant proportion of overall expenditure in health care. With escalating costs, knowing the correlates of LOS and in-hospital cost is important for decisions on allocating resources. However, hospital charge and LOS are correlated. We describe two regression models that permit estimation of mean charges as a function of patient hospital stay and adjust for the influence of patient characteristics and treatment procedures on LOS and charge. In the first model, the mean charge over a specified duration is a weighted average of the expected cumulative charge, with weighting determined by the distribution of LOS. The second model for LOS and charge explicitly accounts for their correlation and yields estimates of the average charge per average LOS. The methods are applied to assess mean charges and mean charge per day by cardiac procedure in a cohort of patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction, while adjusting for the impact of patient demographic and clinical factors on LOS and charge. For relatively short hospital stays, and when only total hospital charges are available, these models provide a flexible approach to estimating summary measures on resource use while controlling for the effects of covariates on LOS and charge.

Cost-effectiveness of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator: a review of current evidence

INTRODUCTION

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy is indicated for patients at risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD) due to ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF). The high relative cost of therapy with the ICD versus antiarrhythmic drugs has raised questions regarding its cost-effectiveness. To address these questions, we review the literature on ICD cost-effectiveness.

METHODS AND RESULTS

MEDLINE and other databases were searched for articles published since 1980 reporting original data on the cost-effectiveness of ICD versus drug therapy for patients at risk for SCD. Data on costs and life-years were abstracted and studies grouped into decision analysis models and trial-based analyses. Cost-effectiveness ratios were inflated to 2002 US dollars. Thirteen economic studies were included in this review: 6 decision-analytic models, 4 economic analysis alongside randomized controlled trials, and 1 observational study. Two additional studies evaluated the cost-effectiveness of ICDs stratified by mortality risk. Studies varied in time horizon, and in all but one study ICD therapy was more costly than drug therapy. Early models assumed larger survival benefits than were observed in subsequent trials; therefore, ICDs appeared to be more cost-effective (i.e., US dollars 28000-US dollars 60000 per life-year gained). Three large clinical trial-based studies estimated that the cost per life-year gained was between US dollars 30181 and US dollars 185000. Stratified analyses show that patients at higher risk for mortality due to structural heart disease (e.g., left ventricular ejection fraction <35%) benefit more from ICD therapy, resulting in lower cost-effectiveness ratios.

CONCLUSION

ICD therapy continues to evolve with changing methods of implantation and improving technology. Current evidence suggests that ICDs may be a cost-effective option in patients at high risk for VT/VF. The cost-effectiveness of ICD therapy for primary and secondary prevention of SCD depends upon patient characteristics that influence their prior risk of mortality. Further research on patient selection criteria and the measurement of health-related quality of life is required.

Cardioverter-defibrillators after MADIT-II: the balance between weight of evidence and treatment costs

The possibility of using implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention of sudden death in selected high-risk patients has prompted a series of prospective controlled studies. Recently, the MADIT II study highlighted the possibility of effective primary prevention of sudden death in patients with coronary artery disease selected by straightforward clinical data and without expensive screening (electrophysiological study). For patients with previous myocardial infarction and low left ventricular ejection fraction (</=30%), ICD implantation may reduce mortality risk by approximately 31% in the following 2 years. Implementation of this therapeutic strategy threatens to impact on public health-care spending. Possible cost-limiting mechanisms include price cuts because of increasing usage (market forces); identification of subgroups at higher risk of sudden death and use of cheaper devices with limited diagnostic and therapeutic options. Further long-term evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of ICDs should identify subgroups of patients for whom implantation is affordable despite current economic constraints. For heart failure patients, randomized controlled trials are currently evaluating the effects on overall survival of both conventional ICDs and devices with biventricular pacing capabilities. In this perspective, data from the COMPANION trial are expected to stimulate the use of devices with defibrillation back-up in candidates for biventricular pacing.

Cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy

Cost-efficacy assessment of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy has proved contentious and may have limited uptake of ICD therapy, particularly in Europe. Published modeling assessments are too inaccurate to determine clinical practice, and assessments based on clinical studies are incomplete (from the cost-efficacy viewpoint). Although ICD therapy seems certain to be most cost-effective in patients who are likely to have good longevity if their risk of sudden cardiac death is countered, the benefit of ICD therapy is not necessarily limited to such groups. Physicians and health economists need to develop a better understanding of how to assess high-technology therapy costs so that uptake of such therapy is appropriately expedited with due regard to ethical and cost constraints.

Cost effectiveness of implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy versus drug therapy for patients at high risk of sudden cardiac death

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is a therapy for patients at risk of sudden cardiac death due to ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF). But the apparent high cost of ICD therapy relative to antiarrhythmic drugs such as amiodarone has raised questions about the cost effectiveness of ICD therapy versus drug therapy. To inform this debate we reviewed the literature on ICD cost effectiveness. An electronic and manual search was conducted for articles published since 1980 reporting original data on the cost effectiveness of ICD versus drug therapy for patients at risk of VT/VF. Data on costs and life-years gained were abstracted and studies were grouped into those that used decision-analysis models and those that were trial-based analyses. Cost-effectiveness ratios were inflated to 2001 US dollars. Nine studies were included in the review; five studies were modelling studies and four were part of randomised trials of ICD therapy. Studies varied in time horizon, but all except one indicated that ICD therapy was more costly than drug therapy. Early decision models assumed larger survival benefits than those observed in subsequent trials and therefore had attractive incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in the range of dollars US 27000 to dollars US 60000 per life-year gained. Trial-based studies, with the exception of one small trial, indicated cost per life-year gained in the range dollars US 44000 to dollars US 144000. Stratified analysis shows clearly that patients with a greater risk of mortality due to structural heart disease (e.g. left ventricular ejection fraction < or =35%) benefit more from ICD therapy and therefore have a more attractive cost effectiveness ratio than patients at lower risk. ICD therapy is still evolving over time with implant costs declining and device technology improving. Current evidence is that, in selected patients who are at high risk of VT/VF, ICD therapy can be a cost-effective option. Future research should focus on (i) patient selection to optimise benefits for available resources; and (ii) more comprehensive outcome measures to include health-related quality of life.

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: does everybody need one?

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has emerged as an effective, but expensive, therapy for arrhythmic sudden cardiac death. ICD use has been increasing by 20% to 30% per year. Clinical trials have shown that the ICD can be effective for both the primary prevention and the secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death in selected populations. Despite the available trial evidence, several issues pertaining to ICD use remain unresolved, including the treatment of patients not represented in clinical trials, the optimal selection of patients who will benefit from an ICD, the duration of benefit from an ICD, the quality of life for patients with an ICD, and both the cost-effectiveness and the cost impact of the ICD. These considerations are discussed in this article.

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

Ventricular arrhythmias remain a major cause of cardiovascular mortality. Therapy for serious ventricular arrhythmias has evolved over the past decade, from treatment primarily with antiarrhythmic drugs to implanted devices. The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is the best therapy for patients who have experienced an episode of ventricular fibrillation not accompanied by an acute myocardial infarction or other transient or reversible cause. It is also superior therapy in patients with sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) causing syncope or hemodynamic compromise. Controlled clinical trials have confirmed the utility of these devices. As primary prevention, the ICD is superior to conventional antiarrhythmic drug therapy in patients who have survived a myocardial infarction and who have spontaneous, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, a low ejection fraction, inducible VT at electrophysiologic study, and whose VT is not suppressed by procainamide. The effect of the ICD on survival of other patient populations remains to be proven. The device is costly, but its price is generally accepted to be reasonable. The ICD has been a major advance in the treatment of ventricular arrhythmias.

Economic outcomes of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

BACKGROUND

We reviewed the literature pertaining to the cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy in the management of ventricular fibrillation and tachycardia. Discussed are the methodology, advantages, and limitations of economic-outcomes analyses as related to ICD therapy; the impact of new technology and physician practice patterns; and methodological recommendations for future studies.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Articles published between 1990 and 1997 were screened for cost-effectiveness analyses of ICD versus antiarrhythmic drug therapy. Randomized clinical trials, prospective and retrospective studies, and economic models were included. These studies report incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from cost savings of $13 975 per life-year saved (LYS) to an incremental cost of $114 917 per LYS for ICD therapy. Differences were due to study type, cost-reporting methodology, ICD technology used, and length of follow-up. Assuming current technology and physician practice patterns, we find that ICD total therapy costs may break even in 1 to 3 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent literature suggests that ICDs are a cost-effective therapy for management of life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias. The advent of new technology and patient management practices should further improve the cost-effectiveness of ICD therapy. Future studies of ICD cost-effectiveness should address the implications of truncated follow-up periods and quality of life.

Sudden Cardiac Death

Great strides have been made in the approach to the management of sudden cardiac death. Patients who have been successfully resuscitated from an episode of sudden cardiac death are at high risk of recurrence. Much larger groups of patients who have not had episodes of sudden cardiac death are also at substantial risk for this event, however. Because the survival rates associated with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are dismal, these high-risk populations must be targeted for prophylaxis. Beta-blockers have been shown to be an effective pharmacologic therapy in patients who have had myocardial infarction and, most recently, in patients with congestive heart failure. When possible, these agents should be used in these populations. No class I or class III antiarrhythmic drugs, with the possible exception of amiodarone, have been shown to have efficacy as prophylactic agents for the reduction of mortality in these populations. In patients who have hemodynamically significant sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias or an aborted episode of sudden cardiac death, the current therapy of choice is an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). For prophylaxis of sudden cardiac death in patients who have not had a previous event, several approaches may be considered. Currently, the best therapeutic approach for prophylaxis of sudden cardiac death seems to be the ICD; however, use of this device can be justified only in patients at substantial risk of sudden cardiac death. Defining the high-risk populations that will benefit from ICDs is critical in managing the problem of sudden cardiac death.

Outcome of patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy and unexplained syncope treated with an implantable defibrillator

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine the outcome of patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy, unexplained syncope and a negative electrophysiology test who are treated with an implantable defibrillator.

BACKGROUND

Patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy and unexplained syncope may be at high risk for sudden cardiac death, and they are sometimes treated with an implantable defibrillator.

METHODS

This study prospectively determined the outcome of 14 consecutive patients who had a nonischemic cardiomyopathy, unexplained syncope and a negative electrophysiology test and who underwent defibrillator implantation (Syncope Group). Nineteen consecutive patients with a nonischemic cardiomyopathy and a cardiac arrest who were treated with a defibrillator (Arrest Group) served as a control group.

RESULTS

Seven of 14 patients (50%) in the Syncope Group received appropriate shocks for ventricular arrhythmias during a mean follow-up of 24+/-13 months, compared with 8 of 19 patients (42%) in the Arrest Group during a mean follow-up of 45+/-40 months (p = 0.1). The mean duration from device implantation until the first appropriate shock was 32+/-7 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 18 to 45 months) in the Syncope Group compared to 72+/-12 months (95% CI, 48 to 96 months) in the Arrest Group (p = 0.1). Among patients who received appropriate shocks, the mean time from defibrillator implantation to the first appropriate shock was 10+/-14 months in the Syncope Group, compared with 48+/-47 months in the Arrest Group (p = 0.06). Recurrent syncope was always associated with ventricular tachyarrhythmias.

CONCLUSIONS

The high incidence of appropriate defibrillator shocks and the association of recurrent syncope with ventricular arrhythmias support the treatment of patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy, unexplained syncope and a negative electrophysiology test with an implantable defibrillator.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

Implantable defibrillators have become the dominant therapeutic modality for patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Current defibrillators are small (<60 mL) and implanted with techniques similar to standard pacemakers. They provide high-energy shocks for ventricular fibrillation and rapid ventricular tachycardia, antitachycardia pacing for monomorphic ventricular tachycardia, as well as antibradycardia pacing. Newer devices incorporating an atrial lead allow dual-chamber pacing and better discrimination between ventricular and supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. Randomized controlled trials have shown superior survival with implantable defibrillators than with antiarrhythmic drugs in survivors of life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias and in high-risk patients with coronary artery disease. Complications associated with implantable defibrillator therapy include infection, lead failure, and spurious shocks for supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. Most patients adapt well to living with an implantable defibrillator, although driving often has to be restricted. Limited evidence suggests that implantable defibrillator therapy is cost-effective when compared with other widely accepted treatments. The use of implantable defibrillators is likely to continue to expand in the future. Ongoing clinical trials will define further prophylactic indications of the implantable defibrillator and clarify its cost-effectiveness ratio in different clinical settings.

Pectoral cardioverter defibrillators: comparison of prepectoral and submuscular implantation techniques

The purpose of this study was to compare the two techniques of pectoral ICD implantation, prepectoral and submuscular, performed by an electrophysiologist in the catheterization laboratory with use of general or local anesthesia in 45 consecutive patients. Over a period of 30 months, we implanted pectoral transvenous ICDs in 43 men and 2 women, aged 59 +/- 12 years, with use of general (n = 20) or local (n = 25) anesthesia in the catheterization laboratory. Patients had coronary (n = 30) or valvular (n = 4) disease, cardiomyopathy (n = 10) or no organic disease (n = 1), a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 31%, and presented with ventricular tachycardia (n = 40) or fibrillation (n = 5). One-lead ICD systems (18 Endotak, 10 Transvene/8 Sprint, 2 EnGuard) were used in 38 patients, 2-lead (5 Transvene, 1 EnGuard) systems in 6 patients, and 1 atrioventricular lead ICD system in 1 patient. The prepectoral technique was employed in 29 patients with adequate subcutaneous tissue, while the submuscular technique was used in 16 patients who had a thin layer of subcutaneous tissue. The defibrillation threshold averaged 9-10 J in both groups and there were no differences in pace/sense thresholds. All implants were entirely transvenous with no subcutaneous patch. Biphasic ICD devices were employed in all patients. Active or hot can devices were used in 39 patients. There were no complications, operative deaths, or infections. Patients were discharged at a mean of 3 days. All devices functioned well at predis-charge testing. Over 14 +/- 8 months, 20 patients received appropriate device therapy (antitachycardia pacing or shocks). No late complications occurred. One patient died at 3 months of pump failure; there were no sudden deaths. In conclusion, for exclusive pectoral implantation of transvenous ICDs, electrophysiologists should master both prepectoral and submuscular techniques. One can thus avoid potential skin erosion or need for abdominal implantation in patients with a thin layer of subcutaneous tissue. Finally, there are no differences in pacing or defibrillation thresholds between the two techniques.

Prehospital discharge defibrillation testing in ICD recipients: a prospective study based on cost analysis

Prehospital discharge defibrillation testing is often performed to verify the function of newly implanted cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). To determine whether elimination of predischarge testing could reduce costs without placing patients at additional risk, 31 patients were randomized in this prospective clinical evaluation to either receive or not receive a predischarge ICD defibrillation test. Expenses associated with postimplant care was the primary endpoint. All patients underwent induction of ventricular fibrillation after 6 months to evaluate ICD function. The groups were well matched in terms of patient characteristics, initial lead implant parameters, and defibrillation thresholds. Elimination of prehospital discharge testing resulted in a savings of $1,800/patient after 6 months, with no difference between groups in terms of ICD complication rates or unanticipated hospital admissions. Further studies are needed to better define the most appropriate time to assess defibrillation thresholds in the first year after implantation.

Short- and long-term performance of a tripolar down-sized single lead for implantable cardioverter defibrillator treatment: a randomized prospective European multicenter study. European Endotak DSP Investigator Group

A new, thinner (10 Fr) and more flexible, single-pass transvenous endocardial ICD lead, Endotak DSP, was compared with a conventional lead, Endotak C, as a control in a prospective randomized multicenter study in combination with a nonactive can ICD. A total of 123 patients were enrolled, 55 of whom received a down-sized DSP lead. Lead-alone configuration was successfully implanted in 95% of the DSP patients vs 88% in the control group. The mean defibrillation threshold (DFT) was determined by means of a step-down protocol, and was identical in the two groups, 10.5 +/- 4.8 J in the DSP group versus 10.5 +/- 4.8 J in the control group. At implantation, the DSP mean pacing threshold was lower, 0.51 +/- 0.18 V versus 0.62 +/- 0.35 V (p < 0.05) in the control group, and the mean pacing impedance higher, 594 +/- 110 omega vs 523 +/- 135 omega (p < 0.05). During the follow-up period, the statistically significant difference in thresholds disappeared, while the difference in impedance remained. Tachyarrhythmia treatment by shock or antitachycardia pacing (ATP) was delivered in 53% and 41%, respectively, of the patients with a 100% success rate. In the DSP group, all 28 episodes of polymorphic ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation were converted by the first shock as compared to 57 of 69 episodes (83%) in the control group (p < 0.05). Monomorphic ventricular tachycardias were terminated by ATP alone in 96% versus 94%. Lead related problems were minor and observed in 5% and 7%, respectively. In summary, both leads were safe and efficacious in the detection and treatment of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. There were no differences between the DSP and control groups regarding short- or long-term lead related complications.

The cost-effectiveness of automatic implantable cardiac defibrillators: results from MADIT. Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial

BACKGROUND

The recently reported Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT) showed improved survival in selected asymptomatic patients with coronary disease and nonsustained ventricular tachycardia. The economic consequences of defibrillator management in this patient population are unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients were followed up to quantify their use of healthcare services, including hospitalizations, physician visits, medications, laboratory tests, and procedures, during the trial. The costs of these services, including the costs of the defibrillator, were determined in patients randomized to defibrillator and nondefibrillator therapy. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated by relating these costs to the increased survival associated with the use of the defibrillator. The average survival for the defibrillator group over a 4-year period was 3.66 years compared with 2.80 years for conventionally treated patients. Accumulated net costs were $97,560 for the defibrillator group compared with $75,980 for individuals treated with medications alone. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $27,000 per life-year saved compares favorably with other cardiac interventions. Sensitivity analyses showed that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio would be reduced to approximately $23,000 per life-year saved if transvenous defibrillators were used instead of the older devices, which required thoracic surgery for implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

An implanted cardiac defibrillator is cost-effective in selected individuals at high risk for ventricular arrhythmias.

Transvenous defibrillator systems implanted by electrophysiologists in the catheterization laboratory

BACKGROUND

A significantly lower perioperative mortality has established the nonthoracotomy approach as the preferred technique in implantable cardioverter defibrillation (ICD) implantation. With the currently available transvenous endocardial leads in combination with the expanded use of biphasic ICD devices, the need for use of an additional subcutaneous lead has almost been eliminated. Thus, implantation of these systems has been simplified and reports have appeared in the literature that the procedure can now be performed by an electrophysiologist alone without surgical assistance in the electrophysiology or catheterization laboratory.

HYPOTHESIS

The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility and safety of ICD implantation by an electrophysiologist in a procedure performed entirely in the catheterization laboratory without the assistance of a surgeon.

METHODS

Over a period of 28 months, we implanted transvenous ICDs in 40 consecutive patients with (n = 34) and without (n = 6) use of general anesthesia in the catheterization laboratory with minor surgical assistance in abdominal pocket fashioning for the first two cases and then working alone for the remainder. The study included 36 men and 4 women, aged 59 +/- 12.5 years, with coronary artery (n = 22) or valvular heart disease (n = 4), cardiomyopathy (n = 12), and long QT syndrome (n = 1) or idiopathic ventricular tachycardia (n = 1), and a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 34%, who presented with ventricular tachycardia (n = 30) or ventricular fibrillation (n = 10).

RESULTS

One-lead ICD systems (Endotak, n = 21; Transvene, n = 8; or EnGuard, n = 1) were used in 30 patients, and 2-lead (EnGuard, n = 5 or Transvene, n = 5) systems in 10 patients. Generators were implanted in an abdominal (n = 17) or pectoral (n = 23) pocket. Active can devices were employed in 17 patients. The defibrillation threshold averaged 9 J. All implants were entirely transvenous with no subcutaneous patch. Biphasic ICD devices were employed in all patients. There were three complications (8%); one pulmonary edema that responded to drug therapy, one lead insulation break that required reoperation on the third day, and one pocket hematoma in a patient receiving anticoagulation, with no need for evacuation. There were no operative deaths and no infections. After implant, patients were discharged at a mean of 3 days. All devices functioned well at predischarge testing. During follow-up (12 +/- 8 months), 20 patients received appropriate and 5 patients inappropriate shocks. Three patients died of pump failure at 3, 7, and 19 months, respectively; they had received 0, 42, and 15 appropriate shocks, respectively, over these months. Another patient succumbed to a myocardial infarction at 9 months. At 6 months, one patient developed subacute subclavian vein thrombosis which resolved with anticoagulation therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Current transvenous biphasic ICD systems allow experienced electrophysiologists to implant them safely alone in the catheterization laboratory without surgical assistance, even for abdominal implants, with a high success rate and no need for use of a subcutaneous patch.

Cost savings with nonthoracotomy implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

We analyzed hospital and physician charges for 99 consecutive patients who underwent implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation at our institution. Eighteen patients received an epicardial lead system and 81 were scheduled to receive a nonthoracotomy lead system, the generator being implanted either abdominally (n = 62) or pectorally (n = 19). The epicardial group had a significantly longer convalescent stay (11.6 +/- 2.5 days; mean +/- SEM) than the abdominal nonthoracotomy group, analyzed by intention to treat (4.6 +/- 0.5 days) or by treatment received (3.8 +/- 0.2 days; p <0.0001). Postoperative stay for the pectoral group was shorter still (2.9 +/- 0.4 days; p <0.033). Total charges for the epicardial group were $99,081 +/- $25,094, significantly higher than those for any of the nonthoracotomy groups (p <0.017). Total charges for the pectoral group were $44,128 +/- $2,465, significantly less than those for the abdominal nonthoracotomy group, analyzed by intention to treat ($59,961 +/- $1,369; p <0.05) or by treatment received ($56,679 +/- $635; p <0.05). Cost reductions in the nonthoracotomy groups were primarily due to decreased in-hospital convalescence period, lower surgeon and anesthesiologist fees, and lower procedure-day hospital charges in the pectoral group. The use of ICDs with nonthoracotomy leads can result in significantly shorter in-hospital convalescence and a reduction in total implant-related charges of 40% to 55%. The use of pectorally implanted ICDs results in further reduction in hospital stay and further cost reduction of 22% to 26%. The trend toward shorter convalescent stay without postimplant testing is likely to reduce further the overall costs of ICD implantation.

Implanted cardioverter-defibrillators are preferable to drugs as primary therapy in sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias

The choice of initial therapy for patients with malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias is examined based on clinical efficacy, patient safety, and cost. Antiarrhythmic drug therapy can be administered using a guided or empiric approach. Guided type-1 antiarrhythmic drug therapy has been associated with high arrhythmia recurrence rates (> 40% at 1 year) and moderate sudden death rates (10% at 1 year). Sotalol is associated with lower arrhythmia recurrence rates (20% at 1 year) that increase to 50% at 4 years. Beta-blocking agents have a limited role as stand-alone therapy in this condition. Empiric amiodarone therapy has sudden death-free survival rates of 82% at 2 years but has significantly poorer results in patients with ejection fractions < or = 40%. In contrast, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy has reported sudden death recurrence rates of 1% to 2% per year, with a cumulative index of 10% at 5 years. Total survival rate of ICD recipients ranges from 85% to 92% at 2 years. In patients with good left ventricular function, it approaches 90% at 5 years, whereas it is between 50% to 60% in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction. Data from device memory indicate an absolute reduction in mortality rates with ICD intervention. Comparison of drug and device therapy has been performed in retrospective and prospective studies. Improved survival with device therapy is noted, particularly in patients with ejection fractions < or = 35% to 40% in retrospective studies. The results of two small prospective randomized trials also show significant survival advantage as compared with those for type-1C drugs and a mixed group of antiarrhythmic drugs. An initial strategy of ICD therapy was shown to be superior in the Netherlands Cooperative Study. The 30-day perioperative mortality rate of ICD therapy of 0.8% contrasts favorably with a 13% mortality rate in the ESVEM trial with antiarrhythmic drugs and a 3.5% mortality rate in the CASCADE study. Economic analyses show that drug therapy and device therapy are both within the range of other current cardiovascular therapies. An improving economic profile for device therapy has been observed with nonthoracotomy and pectoral implantation and direct use of ICD therapy because primary therapy shortens hospital stay and reduces costs. Based on available data, ICD therapy is preferable as initial therapy in patients with malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias.

Confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios

The problem of variability in computed cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) is usually addressed by performing sensitivity analyses to determine the effects on these ratios of plausible ranges of values of input parameters. However, the sampling variation that exists in these estimated parameters can be utilized to obtain confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios. As cost-effectiveness analysis becomes more widely used, new techniques need to be developed for establishing when a difference in strategies evaluated is meaningful. A first step is to establish the precision of the CER itself. The authors estimate the precision of a CER in the context of a statistical model in which the primary outcome is survival, with cost and effectiveness defined in terms of the underlying survival distribution (S). Effectiveness (alpha) is measured by life expectancy, restricted to a finite time horizon and discounted at a fixed rate r, alpha = integral of e-rtS(t)dt. Cumulative cost (beta) per patient is regarded as resource utilization and incurred randomly over time depending on the survival experience of the patient, beta = integral of e-rtS(t)dC(t), where C(t) is the total potential resources utilized up to time t. Average cost-effectiveness (ACE) of a single strategy is beta/alpha, and when comparing two strategies, the CER is delta beta/delta alpha, the ratio of the incremental cost to the difference in mean survival. Utilizing the sampling distribution of the Kaplan-Meier estimate of S yields standard errors and confidence intervals for ACE and CER. The technique is applied to survival data from 218 previously studied patients to assess 95% confidence intervals for the CER and ACE of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator as compared with electrophysiology-guided therapy.