Cost-effectiveness considerations: the Dutch prospective study of the automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator as first-choice therapy

Psychiatric disorders and quality of life in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the literature with regard to psychiatric disorders and quality of life in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator.

DATA SOURCES

Research was conducted in 3 databases (ISI Web of Science, PubMed, and PsycINFO) using the terms implantable, cardioverter, defibrillator, quality of life, psych *, anxiety, and depression.

STUDY SELECTION

The search yielded 1,399 references. Non-English and repeated references were excluded. After abstract analysis, 42 references were recovered for full-text reading, and 25 articles were selected for this review.

DATA EXTRACTION

Research took place in April 2012, and no time restriction was placed on any of the database searches. Review or theoretical articles were excluded, and only clinical trials and epidemiologic studies were selected for this review.

RESULTS

A systematic review of the literature revealed mostly observational prospective cohort studies followed by cross-sectional observational studies and randomized clinical trials. Few studies included in the review were observational retrospective cohort or case-control studies. There are prominent signs and symptoms of anxiety and depression in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Disorders include phobic anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, panic disorder, somatoform disorder, agoraphobia, and depression. Quality of life in the physical, social, and psychological domains is affected and is related to the intensity and the frequency of the device's electrical discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

Work regarding psychiatric comorbidity in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator has shown that anxiety and depression are common. The patients and their families should be informed by their doctors that the presence of the device minimizes risk of sudden death and allows them to have a normal life.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of implantable defibrillator as first-choice therapy versus electrophysiologically guided, tiered strategy in postinfarct sudden death survivors. A randomized study

BACKGROUND

Rising costs of health care, partly as a result of costly therapeutic innovations, are of concern to both the medical profession and healthcare authorities. The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is still not remunerated by Dutch healthcare insurers. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of early implantation of the ICD in postinfarct sudden death survivors.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Sixty consecutive postinfarct survivors of cardiac arrest caused by ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation were randomly assigned either ICD as first choice (n = 29) or a tiered therapy starting with antiarrhythmic drugs and guided by electrophysiological (EP) testing (n = 31). Median follow-up was 729 days (range, 3 to 1675 days). Fifteen patients died, 4 in the early ICD group and 11 in the EP-guided strategy group (P = .07). For quantitative assessment, the cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated for both groups and expressed as median total costs per patient per day alive. Because effectiveness aspects other than mortality are not incorporated in this ratio, other factors related to quality of life were used as qualitative measures of cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness ratios were $63 and $94 for the early ICD and EP-guided strategy groups, respectively, per patient per day alive. This amounts to a net cost-effectiveness of $11,315 per patient per year alive saved by early ICD implantation. Costs in the early ICD group were higher only during the first 3 months of follow-up, but as a result of the high proportion of therapy changes, including arrhythmia surgery and late ICD implantation, costs in the EP-guided strategy group became higher after that. Patients discharged with antiarrhythmic drugs as sole therapy had the lowest total costs. This subset, however, showed extremely high mortality, resulting in a poor cost-effectiveness ratio ($196 per day). Invasive therapies and hospitalization were the major contributors to costs. If quality-of-life measures are taken into account, the cost-effectiveness of early ICD implantation was even more favorable. Recurrent cardiac arrest and cardiac transplantation occurred in the EP-guided strategy group only, whereas exercise tolerance, total hospitalization duration, number of invasive procedures, and antiarrhythmic therapy changes were significantly in favor of early ICD implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of cost-effectiveness, early ICD implantation is superior to the EP-guided therapeutic strategy in postinfarct sudden death survivors.

Predictors of mortality in patients with sustained ventricular tachycardias or ventricular fibrillation and depressed left ventricular function: importance of beta-blockade

To study prognostic factors in patients with sustained ventricular tachycardias (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) complicated by left ventricular dysfunction, we evaluated the predictive value of demographic, clinical, and hemodynamic parameters for cardiac mortality and sudden cardiac death in 85 patients with VT or VF and left ventricular ejection fraction < 0.45 (mean 0.27 +/- 0.10). Patients underwent serial drug testing and received appropriate antiarrhythmic treatment, with amiodarone given as last-resort therapy. During a follow-up of 24 +/- 13 months, 23 patients died of cardiac causes, and 18 of them died suddenly. Left ventricular ejection fraction < or = 0.27 and amiodarone treatment were related to greater cardiac mortality and increased risk of sudden cardiac death, whereas beta-blockade was associated with improved survival. In the multivariate model cardiac mortality was best predicted by a left ventricular ejection fraction < or = 0.27, and absence of beta-blockade and severe left ventricular dysfunction were the strongest predictors of sudden cardiac death. We conclude that severe left ventricular dysfunction predicts increased cardiac mortality and high risk of sudden cardiac death. Moreover, beta-blocking treatment is associated with lower cardiac mortality and a reduced risk of sudden cardiac death in patients with sustained VT or VF and depressed left ventricular function. beta-Blocking agents may therefore be an important addition to conventional antiarrhythmic treatment in patients with VT or VF and left ventricular dysfunction.

Implications for present and future applications of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator resulting from the use of a simple model of cost efficacy

OBJECTIVE

To develop a model to assess the cost-efficacy of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator to prevent sudden death. The model must be sufficiently flexible to allow the use of cost and survival figures derived from different sources.

SETTING

The study was conducted in a teaching hospital department of cardiology with experience of 40 implantable cardioverter defibrillator implants and a large database of over 500 survivors of myocardial infarction.

PROCEDURE

The basic costs of screening tests, stay in hospital, and purchase of implantable cardioverter defibrillators were derived from St George's Hospital during 1991. To assess the cost-efficacy of various strategies for the use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators, survival data taken from published studies or from our own database. Implications of the national cost of the various strategies were calculated by estimating the number of patients a year requiring implantation of a defibrillator if the strategy was adopted.

RESULTS

Use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in survivors of cardiac arrest costs between 22,400 pounds and 57,000 pounds for each year of life saved. Most of the strategies proposed by the current generation of implantable cardioverter defibrillator trials have cost efficacies in the same range, and adoption of any one of these strategies in the United Kingdom could cost between 2 million pounds and 100 million pounds a year. Future technical and medical developments mean that cost-efficacy may be improved by up to 80%. Due to the limitations of screening tests currently available restriction on the use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators to those groups where it seems highly cost-effective will result in a small impact on overall mortality from sudden cardiac death.

CONCLUSION

Present and possible future applications of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator seem expensive when compared with currently accepted treatments. Technical and medical developments are, however, likely to result in a dramatic improvement in cost efficacy over the next few years.