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

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.

How to evaluate whether a new technology in the operating room is cost-effective from society's viewpoint

The hospital operating room is one of the most important and costly environments in health care. Given the current reductions in reimbursement and limited resources, hospital administrators and operating room managers have to be careful about adopting new technologies into the operating room. Operating rooms must balance the improved care a new technology can provide with its additional costs. Economic analysis provides systematic methods to guide decisions by quantitatively assessing the value of a new technology.

Cost of preimplantation cardiac imaging in patients referred for a primary-prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

Recent guidelines have focused on ejection fraction cut-off values to determine eligibility for primary-prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). Clinical trials that led to the guidelines used varying techniques for ejection fraction assessment, including echocardiography and multigated acquisition (MUGA) scan. A prospective cohort study to determine the economic attractiveness of repeated echocardiography and MUGA scanning during the evaluation process of patients referred for consideration of a primary-prevention ICD was undertaken. From January 2005 to December 2006, data were collected for patients aged >18 years with ejection fraction <30% referred for a primary-prevention ICD based on referral assessment of heart function in any form. Costs based on the 2006 Ontario Health Insurance Plan fee schedule were determined for clinical assessment, echocardiography, MUGA scanning, and ICD implantation in patients who remained eligible based on MUGA ejection fraction. The 100 patients (age 61.1 +/- 10.2 years; 78 men) assessed for primary-prevention ICD implantation had an ejection fraction of 28.9 +/- 12.3% using MUGA scan. Thirty-one of 100 patients (31%) had an ejection fraction >30% and were no longer eligible for an ICD. Although imaging increased preimplantation cost from dollars 130 to dollars 536 per patient, averted inappropriate ICDs decreased the overall per-patient cost from dollars 20,914 to dollars 14,877. Despite an additional testing cost of dollars 40,599, the overall cost savings was dollars 603,722 in the 100 patients, with a cost savings of dollars 6,037 per patient. In conclusion, verification of ejection fraction identified a significant proportion of patients who were not eligible for an ICD.

Economic evaluations of anticoagulants for the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism following major trauma

Venous thromboembolism is a life-threatening complication in patients following major trauma. These patients are at increased risk of deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. In the absence of a major contraindication, anticoagulant prophylaxis with either low-dose unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin is recommended. The objectives of this study were to undertake a systematic review and critically evaluate published cost-effectiveness analyses of anticoagulant prophylaxis against deep-vein thrombosis following major trauma. The results of the identified studies varied significantly, from enoxaparin being the dominant strategy based on the cost-per-deep-vein thrombosis averted, to low-dose unfractionated heparin being the dominant strategy based on the cost per life-year gained. In general, the more comprehensive the model, the more favorable the results were towards low-dose unfractionated heparin.

Effect of bundle branch block on microvolt T-wave alternans and electrophysiologic testing in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy

BACKGROUND

T-wave alternans (TWA) and electrophysiology study (EPS) are used for risk stratification for sudden death.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the study was to determine the effect of bundle branch block or intraventricular conduction delay on TWA and EPS.

METHODS

386 patients with coronary artery disease, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, and left ventricular ejection fraction < or =40% underwent TWA and EPS, and were followed for 40 +/- 19 months.

RESULTS

Patients with wide QRS were more likely than narrow QRS patients to have nonnegative TWA (77% vs 63%, P <.01) or positive EPS (60% vs 48%, P = .03). Nonnegative TWA predicted the combined endpoint of ventricular tachyarrhythmia or death in narrow QRS (HR = 1.64, P = .04) but not wide QRS patients (HR = 1.04, P = .91). Similarly, positive EPS predicted the combined endpoint in narrow QRS (HR = 2.28, P <.001) but not wide QRS patients (HR = 0.94, P = .84). In multivariate analysis, QRS width and TWA, as well as QRS width and EPS, were independent predictors of events. There was no TWA- or EPS-based difference in arrhythmia-free survival within any specific wide QRS morphology.

CONCLUSION

TWA and EPS are more often abnormal in patients with a wide QRS than in those with a narrow QRS. In patients with narrow QRS, both TWA and EPS stratify patients according to their risk of ventricular tachyarrhythmia or death. However, among patients with a wide QRS, regardless of specific QRS morphology, the risk is high and comparable regardless of TWA or EPS results. Therefore, the only truly low-risk group consists of those patients with negative test results and a narrow QRS.

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.

[Efficiency potential in the pacemaker/implantable cardioverter defibrillator outpatient clinic]

The aim of the present study was to elucidate whether the duration of a technical follow-up (FU) of a pacemaker (PM)/implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has an impact on cost-effectiveness in the outpatient clinic. We determined the time required for a complete FU of devices from three different manufacturers. In 130 patients (70 VVI/DDD-PM, 60 VVI/DDD-ICD) with either a PM (Phylos, Chorum/Talent, Kappa, EnPulse) or an ICD (Belos, Alto or GEM) the time was recorded for a complete FU including determination of lead impedance, sensing and pacing threshold. The time for activation of individual menue buttons was excluded. On the basis of time required for FU, cost-units (CU) were calculated for 2000 FU/year and for a presumed device longevity (PM 7 years, ICD 5 years). For VVI-PM, the duration of FU was almost identical for devices from different manufacturers (105+/-11 s to 125+/-8 s; p=n.s.). However, analysis of DDD-PM revealed marked differences (140+/-25 s vs 282+/-23 s, p<0.05). Time for FU of ICDs varied between 108+/-5 s and 207+/-21 s (p<0.05) in VVI-ICDs and between 129+/-8 ms and 225+/-23 s (p<0.05) in DDD-ICDs. The total savings could be 55 000 CU in VVI- and 53 333 CU in DDD-ICDs. For full automatic DDD-pacemakers (EnPulse) time for FU could be reduced to 58+/-3 s (p<0.05). Differences in FU times were caused by problems with telemetry, delay during booting of the programmer, interrogation at the beginning and at the end of FU and for sensing tests. Improving not only programmers and devices but also test automaticity could significantly increase cost-efficiency in the outpatient clinic.

Cost-effectiveness of implanted defibrillators in young people with inherited cardiac arrhythmias

BACKGROUND

The implanted cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has been shown to improve survival in adult patients with high risk acquired cardiac disease, with a cost-effectiveness ratio in the range of $30,000 to $185,000 per quality-adjusted-life-year saved. However, data on the benefit and cost-effectiveness of device therapy in high-risk patients with inherited cardiac disorders are limited.

METHODS

We developed two separate computer-based analytical models to compare non-ICD with ICD therapy in patients (age range: 10-75 years) with long QT syndrome (LQTS) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). In each disease entity patients were stratified into low-risk (no known risk factors); high-risk (known risk factors [primary prevention]); and very high-risk (prior near-fatal events [secondary prevention]). Net costs were defined as the difference between costs resulting from treatment of the disease and savings due to gained productivity attributable to prevention of sudden cardiac death. Outcome was defined as costs per quality-adjusted life-years saved.

RESULTS

In LQTS, defibrillator therapy was shown to be cost effective in high-risk male patients (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]=$3328 per quality-adjusted-life-year saved), and cost saving in high-risk females (ICER=$7102 gained per quality-adjusted-life-year saved) and very high-risk males and females (ICER=$15,483 and 19,393 gained per quality-adjusted-life-year saved, respectively). In HCM, defibrillator therapy was cost saving in both male and female high-risk (ICER=$17,892 and $17,526 gained per quality-adjusted-life-year saved, respectively) and very high-risk (ICER $22,944 and $22,329 gained per quality-adjusted-life-year saved, respectively) patients. Defibrillator therapy was not shown to be cost effective in low-risk patients with either LQTS or HCM (ICER in the range of $400,000 to $600,000 lost per quality-adjusted-life-year saved). Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the results in each risk group.

CONCLUSIONS

In appropriately selected patients with inherited cardiac disorders, early intervention with ICD therapy is cost-effective to cost saving due to added years of gained productivity when the lifespan of an individual at risk is considered.