Cost-effectiveness of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator?

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.

Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: Can We Afford the Cost of Cardioverter-Defibrillators? Data from the Search-MI Registry-Italian Sub-study

BACKGROUND

Large randomized trials show that in appropriately selected patients with left ventricular dysfunction, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) can improve overall survival at 2-5 years. Since direct implementation of the criteria used in the MADIT II and SCD-HeFT will lead to a marked rise in ICD implants, there is a growing fear that increased use of ICDs may cause a dramatic burden to health care systems. The ICD has traditionally been seen as an expensive form of treatment, which is difficult to accept at the first look. This is mainly due to the nonlinear character of the ICD investment, characterized by high initial expenditure, followed by a deferred pay-off in terms of clinical benefits. Cost-effectiveness analysis may help provide a different perspective on the problem of ICD cost, as may estimation of the daily cost of ICD treatment, assuming a time horizon of 5-7 years--a particularly interesting subject for further registry studies.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Based on real expenditure data from 2002 to 2005, as recorded in the Search-MI Registry-Italian Sub-study of patients implanted on MADIT II indications, we estimated the daily costs associated with the device and leads. Over a 5-7 year time horizon, the average daily cost was estimated to be euro 4.60-euro 6.70. Translation of these figures into U.S. market conditions suggests a daily cost of around $7.90-$11.40.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings appear useful to help evaluate the affordability of ICD in comparison with other therapeutic options in a context of limited available economic resources.

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.

Effectiveness of implantable defibrillators for preventing arrhythmic events and death: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and medical strategies for prevention of arrhythmic events and death.

BACKGROUND

The ICD is a potential strategy to reduce mortality in patients at risk of sudden death.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library electronic databases were searched from January 1966 to April 2002. All published randomized controlled trials comparing ICD implantation with medical therapy were reviewed. Four independent reviewers extracted data on all-cause mortality, nonarrhythmic death, and arrhythmic death using a standardized protocol.

RESULTS

Nine studies including over 5,000 patients were synthesized using both fixed-effects and random-effects models. The primary and secondary prevention trials showed a significant benefit of the ICD with respect to arrhythmic death, with relative risks (RR) of 0.34 and 0.50, respectively (both p < 0.001). The mortality benefit of the ICD was entirely attributable to a reduction in arrhythmic death (all trials: p < 0.00001). Whereas the secondary prevention trials exhibited a robust decrease in all-cause ICD mortality (RR 0.75; p < 0.001), the pooled primary prevention trials demonstrated decreased all-cause ICD mortality (RR 0.66; p < 0.05) which was dependent on selected individual trials. The disparity in ICD-related mortality reductions in the primary prevention trials was related to variability in the incidence of arrhythmic death between individual studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the ICD decreases the risk of arrhythmic death, its impact on all-cause mortality is related to the underlying risk of arrhythmia-related death relative to competing causes. Given the cost of the device strategy, policies of targeted intervention based on the future risk of arrhythmia are warranted.

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator is the optimal treatment for both primary and secondary prevention in patients with previous aborted sudden death and with life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias. This article will review the indications and the evidence supporting implantable cardioverter defibrillator use.

Effect of risk stratification on cost-effectiveness of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) effectively prevent sudden cardiac death, but selection of appropriate patients for implantation is complex. We evaluated whether risk stratification based on risk of sudden cardiac death alone was sufficient to predict the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the ICD.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ICD implantation compared with empiric amiodarone treatment. The model incorporated mortality rates from sudden and nonsudden cardiac death, noncardiac death and costs for each treatment strategy. We based our model inputs on data from randomized clinical trials, registries, and meta-analyses. We assumed that the ICD reduced total mortality rates by 25%, relative to use of amiodarone.

RESULTS

The relationship between cost-effectiveness of the ICD and the total annual cardiac mortality rate is U-shaped; cost-effectiveness becomes unfavorable at both low and high total cardiac mortality rates. If the annual total cardiac mortality rate is 12%, the cost-effectiveness of the ICD varies from $36,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained when the ratio of sudden cardiac death to nonsudden cardiac death is 4 to $116,000 per QALY gained when the ratio is 0.25.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness of ICD use relative to amiodarone depends on total cardiac mortality rates as well as the ratio of sudden to nonsudden cardiac death. Studies of candidate diagnostic tests for risk stratification should distinguish patients who die suddenly from those who die nonsuddenly, not just patients who die suddenly from those who live.