The reality of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator longevity: what can be done to improve cost-effectiveness?

Healthcare costs in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients: A real-life cohort study on 19,408 patients from the French national healthcare database

BACKGROUND

The aim is to report healthcare costs in a nationwide cohort of patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD).

METHODS

This real-life longitudinal retrospective cohort study was based on the French National Health Data System and enrolled all adult patients from the general health insurance scheme implanted with an ICD between 2008 and 2011, and followed them until 2018.

RESULTS

Overall, 19,408 patients were included (mean age 63.8, SD 12.4 years, 81.6% males), with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRTD), single-chamber, and dual-chamber ICD in 42.5%, 29.8%, 27.7% of patients, respectively. After a mean follow-up of 6.6 SD 3.3 years, 9514 patients (49.0%) died, and 8678 patients (44.7%) had their ICD replaced. The total healthcare cost (all diseases and injuries combined) was €15,893/patient-year, of which 32% were estimated to be ICD-related. These ICD-related costs were: the implantation hospital stay (representing 59% of the ICD-related costs), ICD replacement (22%), complications' management (11%), and follow-up (9%). Some health events (e.g., a complication during ICD replacement) were counted in two categories, hence the sum of the proportions is >100%. Being under 55 vs. above 75 years old, being treated for hypertension vs. not treated, and receiving a CRT-D vs. a single-chamber ICD each increased the mean total ICD-related cost per patient by approximately 20%; ICD replacement vs. no replacement increased it by 71%.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost two thirds of the total ICD patients' healthcare costs remained not ICD-related. Advancing the understanding of direct and indirect costs may help improving cost-effectiveness of patients' care pathway.

Association of single- vs dual-chamber ICDs with mortality, readmissions, and complications among patients receiving an ICD for primary prevention

IMPORTANCE

Randomized trials of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention predominantly used single-chamber devices. In clinical practice, patients often receive dual-chamber ICDs, even without clear indications for pacing. The outcomes of dual- vs single-chamber devices are uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes of single- and dual-chamber ICDs for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective cohort study of admissions in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry's (NCDR) ICD registry from 2006-2009 that could be linked to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services fee-for-service Medicare claims data. Patients were included if they received an ICD for primary prevention and did not have a documented indication for pacing.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Adjusted risks of 1-year mortality, all-cause readmission, heart failure readmission, and device-related complications within 90 days were estimated with propensity-score matching based on patient, clinician, and hospital factors.

RESULTS

Among 32,034 patients, 12,246 (38%) received a single-chamber device and 19,788 (62%) received a dual-chamber device. In a propensity-matched cohort, rates of complications were lower for single-chamber devices (3.51% vs 4.72%; P < .001; risk difference, -1.20 [95% CI, -1.72 to -0.69]), but device type was not significantly associated with 1-year mortality (unadjusted rate, 9.85% vs 9.77%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.91 to 1.07]; P = .79), 1-year all-cause hospitalization (unadjusted rate, 43.86% vs 44.83%; HR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.97-1.04]; P = .82), or hospitalization for heart failure (unadjusted rate, 14.73% vs 15.38%; HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.99-1.12]; P = .19).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients receiving an ICD for primary prevention without indications for pacing, the use of a dual-chamber device compared with a single-chamber device was associated with a higher risk of device-related complications and similar 1-year mortality and hospitalization outcomes. Reasons for preferentially using dual-chamber ICDs in this setting remains unclear.