Analysis of Implantable Defibrillator Longevity Under Clinical Circumstances: Implications for Device Selection

Cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without defibrillation: a long-standing debate

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) was shown to improve cardiac function, reduce heart failure hospitalizations, improve quality of life and prolong survival in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and intraventricular conduction disturbances, mainly left bundle branch block, on optimal medical therapy with ACE-inhibitors, β-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists up-titrated to maximum tolerated evidence-based doses. CRT can be achieved by means of pacemaker systems (CRT-P) or devices with defibrillation capabilities (CRT-D). CRT-Ds offer an undoubted advantage in the prevention of arrhythmic death, but such an advantage may be of lesser degree in non-ischemic heart failure aetiologies. Moreover, the higher CRT-D hardware complexity compared to CRT-P may predispose to device/lead malfunctions and the higher current drainage may cause a shorter battery duration with consequent premature replacements and the well-known incremental complications. In a period of financial constraints, also device costs should be carefully evaluated, with recent reports suggesting that CRT-Ps may be favoured over CRT-Ds in patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and no prior history of cardiac arrhythmias from a cost-effectiveness point of view. The choice between a CRT-P or a CRT-D device should be patient-tailored whenever straightforward defibrillator indications are not present. The Goldenberg score may facilitate this decision-making process in ambiguous settings. Age, comorbidities, kidney disease, atrial fibrillation, advanced functional class, inappropriate therapy risk, implantable device infections and malfunctions are factors potentially reducing the expected benefit from defibrillating capabilities. Future prospective, randomized controlled trials are warranted to directly compare the efficacy and safety of CRT-Ps and CRT-Ds.

Effect of battery longevity on costs and health outcomes associated with cardiac implantable electronic devices: a Markov model-based Monte Carlo simulation

Introduction

The effects of device and patient characteristics on health and economic outcomes in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are unclear. Modeling can estimate costs and outcomes for patients with CIEDs under a variety of scenarios, varying battery longevity, comorbidities, and care settings. The objective of this analysis was to compare changes in patient outcomes and payer costs attributable to increases in battery life of implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT-D).

Methods and results

We developed a Monte Carlo Markov model simulation to follow patients through primary implant, postoperative maintenance, generator replacement, and revision states. Patients were simulated in 3-month increments for 15 years or until death. Key variables included Charlson Comorbidity Index, CIED type, legacy versus extended battery longevity, mortality rates (procedure and all-cause), infection and non-infectious complication rates, and care settings. Costs included procedure-related (facility and professional), maintenance, and infections and non-infectious complications, all derived from Medicare data (2004–2014, 5% sample). Outcomes included counts of battery replacements, revisions, infections and non-infectious complications, and discounted (3%) costs and life years. An increase in battery longevity in ICDs yielded reductions in numbers of revisions (by 23%), battery changes (by 44%), infections (by 23%), non-infectious complications (by 10%), and total costs per patient (by 9%). Analogous reductions for CRT-Ds were 23% (revisions), 32% (battery changes), 22% (infections), 8% (complications), and 10% (costs).

Conclusion

Based on modeling results, as battery longevity increases, patients experience fewer adverse outcomes and healthcare costs are reduced. Understanding the magnitude of the cost benefit of extended battery life can inform budgeting and planning decisions by healthcare providers and insurers.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s10840-017-0289-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The economic impact of battery longevity in implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for cardiac resynchronization therapy: the hospital and healthcare system perspectives

Aims

Patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT-Ds) are likely to undergo one or more device replacements, mainly for battery depletion. We assessed the economic impact of battery depletion on the overall cost of CRT-D treatment from the perspectives of the healthcare system and the hospital. We also compared devices of different generations and from different manufacturers in terms of therapy cost.

Methods and results

We analysed data on 1792 CRT-Ds implanted in 1399 patients in 9 Italian centres. We calculated the replacement probability and the total therapy cost over 6 years, stratified by device generation and manufacturer. Public tariffs from diagnosis-related groups were used together with device prices and hospitalization costs. Generators were from 3 manufacturers: Boston Scientific (667, 37%), Medtronic (973, 54%), and St Jude Medical (152, 9%). The replacement probability at 6 years was 83 and 68% for earlier- and recent-generation devices, respectively. The need for replacement increased total therapy costs by more than 50% over the initial implantation cost for hospitals and by more than 30% for healthcare system. The improved longevity of recent-generation CRT-Ds reduced the therapy cost by ∼6% in both perspectives. Among recent-generation CRT-Ds, the replacement probability of devices from different manufacturers ranged from 12 to 70%. Consequently, the maximum difference in therapy cost between manufacturers was 40% for hospitals and 19% for the healthcare system.

Conclusions

Differences in CRT-D longevity strongly affect the overall therapy cost. While the use of recent-generation devices has reduced the cost, significant differences exist among currently available systems.

Long-term complications, reoperations and survival following cardioverter-defibrillator implant

OBJECTIVE

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) reduce risk of death in select populations, but are also associated with harms. We aimed to characterise long-term complications and reoperation rate.

METHODS

We assessed the rate, cumulative incidence and predictors of long-term reoperation and survival using a prospective, multicentre registry serving British Columbia in Canada, a universal single payer healthcare system with 4.5 million residents. 3410 patients (mean 63.3 years, 81.7% male) with new primary (n=1854) or secondary prevention (n=1556) ICD implant from 2003 to 2012 were followed for a median of 34 months (single chamber n=1069, dual chamber n=1905, biventricular n=436). Independent predictors of adverse outcomes were defined using Cox regression models.

RESULTS

The overall reoperation rate was 12.0% per patient-year, and less for single vs dual vs biventricular ICDs (9.1% vs 12.5% vs 17.8% per patient-year, respectively). The Kaplan-Meier complication estimates (excluding generator end of life) at 1, 3 and 5 years were respectively: single chamber 10.2%, 16.2% and 21.6%; dual 11.7%, 19.1% and 27.4% and biventricular 15.9%, 22.2% and 24.7%. Cardiac resynchronisation therapy had the highest rate of early lead complications, but lower long-term need for upgrade. Device complexity, age and atrial fibrillation were key determinants of complications. Overall mortality at 1, 3 and 5 years was 5.4%, 17.4% and 32.7%, respectively. In younger patients, observed 5-year survival approached the expected survival in the general population (relative survival ratio=0.96 (0.90-0.98)). With increasing age, observed survival steadily declined relative to expected.

CONCLUSIONS

In a prospective registry capturing all procedures, complication and reoperation rates following de novo ICD implantation were high. Shared decision making must carefully consider these factors.

Significant Discrepancy Between Estimated and Actual Longevity in St. Jude Medical Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators

BACKGROUND

Real-time estimated longevity has been reported in pacemakers for several years, and was recently introduced in implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs).

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the accuracy of this longevity estimate in St. Jude Medical (SJM) ICDs, especially as the device battery approaches depletion.

METHODS

Among patients with SJM ICDs who underwent generator replacements due to reaching elective replacement indicator (ERI) at our institution, we identified those with devices that provided longevity estimates and reviewed their device interrogations in the 18 months prior to ERI. Significant discrepancy was defined as a difference of more than 12 months between estimated and actual longevity at any point during this period.

RESULTS

Forty-six patients with Current/Promote devices formed the study group (40 cardiac resynchronization therapy [CRT] and 6 single/dual chamber). Of these, 34 (74%) had significant discrepancy between estimated and actual longevity (28 CRT and all single/dual). Longevity was significantly overestimated by the device algorithm (mean maximum discrepancy of 18.8 months), more in single/dual than CRT devices (30.5 vs. 17.1 months). Marked discrepancy was seen at voltages ≥2.57 volts, with maximum discrepancy at 2.57 volts (23 months). The overall longevity was higher in the discrepant group of CRT devices than in the nondiscrepant group (67 vs. 61 months, log-rank P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

There was significant overestimation of longevity in nearly three-fourths of Current/Promote SJM ICDs in the last 18 months prior to ERI. Longevity estimates of SJM ICDs may not be reliable for making clinical decisions on frequency of follow-up, as the battery approaches depletion.

Longevity of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a comparison among manufacturers and over time

Aims

Longevity of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) is crucial for patients and healthcare systems as replacements impact on infection rates and cost-effectiveness. Aim was to determine longevity using very large databases of two teaching hospitals with a high number of replacements and a rather homogeneous distribution among manufacturers.

Methods and results

The study population consists of all patients in whom an ICD was inserted in. All ICD manufacturers operating in Switzerland and the Netherlands and all implanted ICDs were included. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator replacements due to normal battery depletion were considered events, and other replacements were censored. Longevity was assessed depending on manufacturers, pacing mode, implant before/after 2006, and all parameters combined. We analysed data from 3436 patients in whom 4881 ICDs [44.2% VVI-ICDs, 27.4% DDD-ICDs, 26.3% cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)-ICDs, 2.0% subcutaneous ICDs] were implanted. The four major manufacturers had implant shares between 18.4 and 31.5%. Replacement due to battery depletion (27.4%) was performed for 1339 ICDs. Patient survival at 5 years was 80.1%. Longevity at 5 years improved in contemporary compared with elderly ICDs [63.9–80.6% across all ICDs, of 73.7–92.1% in VVIs, 58.2–76.1% in DDDs, and of 47.1–66.3% in CRT defibrillators, all P value < 0.05]. Remarkable differences were seen among manufacturers, and those with better performance in elderly ICDs were not those with better performance in contemporary ones.

Conclusion

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator longevity increased in contemporary models independent of manufacturer and pacing mode. Still, significant differences exist among manufacturers. These results might impact on device selection.

Longevity of the Subcutaneous Implantable Defibrillator

Background—

The recent advent of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) has provided investigators with a safe and effective new therapy in patients at risk of sudden cardiac death. At present, no data are available with regard to the longevity of these new devices. This study evaluated the longevity of the S-ICD system.

Methods and Results—

All patients enrolled in the European Regulatory Trial were included in the analysis. During follow-up, time and causes of device replacement or explantation were assessed and categorized. Device longevity was estimated using Kaplan–Meier analysis. Fifty-five patients were followed for a median of 5.8 years. During follow-up, 26 (47%) patients underwent device replacement and 5 (9%) underwent device explantation. Median time to replacement was 5.0 years (Q1–Q3, 4.4–5.6 years). Replacement was caused by battery depletion in 25 patients (92%), of which 5 within 1.5 years because of premature battery depletion, and by infection in 1 patient (2%). Replacement for a transvenous ICD system was required in 4 patients (7%) because of ineffective defibrillation in 1 (0.003 per patient-year), need for resynchronization therapy in 2 (0.01 per patient-year), and for antibradycardia pacing in 1 (0.003 per patient-year). At 5 years follow-up, 71% of devices were still in service.

Conclusions—

This study provides the first estimate of S-ICD system longevity since its introduction in clinical practice. Median longevity of the first generation S-ICD system was 5.0 years. The majority of devices were replaced because of battery depletion.

Clinical Trial Registration—

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01117792.

The mismatch between patient life expectancy and the service life of implantable devices in current cardioverter-defibrillator therapy: a call for larger device batteries

In 2005, Bob Hauser published a paper in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology entitled "The growing mismatch between patient longevity and the service life of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators". Now, nearly a decade later, I would like to perform a second look on the problem of a mismatching between ICD device service life and the survival of ICD recipients. Since 2005, the demographics of the ICD population has changed significantly. Primary prevention has become the dominant indication in defibrillator therapy and device implantation is indicated more and more in earlier stages of cardiac diseases. In former larger scale ICD trials, the patient average 5-year survival probability was in a range of 68-71%; in newer CRT-D trials in a range of 72-88%. Due to a progressively widened ICD indication and implantation preferentially performed in patients with better life expectancy, the problem of inadequate device service life is of growing importance. The early days of defibrillator therapy started with a generator volume of 145 ccm and a device service life <18 months. In this early period, the device miniaturization and extension of service life were similar challenges for the technicians. Today, we have reached a formerly unexpected extent of device miniaturization. However, technologic improvements were often preferentially translated in further device miniaturization and not in prolonging device service life. In his analysis, Bob Hauser reported a prolonged device service life of 2.3 years in ICD models with a larger battery capacity of 0.54 up to 0.69 Ah. Between 2008 and 2014, several studies had been published on the problem of ICD longevity in clinical scenarios. These analyses included "older" and currently used single chamber, dual chamber and CRT devices. The reported average 5-year device service life ranged from 0 to 75%. Assuming today technology, larger battery capacities will only result in minimal increase in device volume. Selected ICD patients may further benefit from device miniaturization-but the vast majority may much more benefit from a significant prolongation in device service life. All published cost-effectiveness analyses in ICD therapy show that device costs and device service life are the dominant determinants of the results. The performed "second look-nearly a decade later" revealed that there are still relevant limitations regarding the device service life in current defibrillator therapy. Technical improvements were preferentially transformed into device miniaturization but not into prolonging device service life. But this optimization is strongly enforced. The most feasible solution might be the use of device batteries with larger capacities. The economic burden, mainly caused by non-adequate device service life, may limit the future realization of ICD therapy in a progressively growing patient population. In the former years, physicians and device manufacturers have ignored the patient perspective in defibrillator therapy. However, it is the patient viewpoint that prolonged device service life is much more important than smaller generator size.

The cost-effectiveness of primary prophylactic implantable defibrillator therapy in patients with ischaemic or non-ischaemic heart disease: a European analysis

AIMS

It remains unclear whether primary prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy is cost-effective compared with a 'no ICD strategy' in the European health care setting. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis for a cohort of patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction <40% and ischaemic or non-ischaemic heart disease.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A Markov decision analytic model was used to evaluate long-term survival, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and lifetime costs for a cohort of patients with a reduced left ventricular function without previous arrhythmias, managed with a prophylactic ICD. Input data on effectiveness were derived from a meta-analysis of primary prophylactic ICD-only therapy randomized trials, from a prospective cohort study of ICD patients, from a health care utilization survey, and from the literature. Input data on costs were derived from a micro-cost analysis. Data on quality-of-life were derived from the literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the uncertainty. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated a mean lifetime cost of €50 685 ± €4604 and 6.26 ± 0.64 QALYs for patients in the 'no ICD strategy'. Patients in the 'ICD strategy' accumulated €86 759 ± €3343 and an effectiveness of 7.08 ± 0.71 QALYs yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €43 993/QALY gained compared with the 'no ICD strategy'. The probability that ICD therapy is cost-effective was 65% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80 000/QALY.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that primary prophylactic ICD therapy in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction <40% and ischaemic or non-ischaemic heart disease is cost-effective in the European setting.

How to truly value implantable cardioverter-defibrillators technology: up-front cost or daily cost?

BACKGROUND

We calculated the daily cost of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) based on their actual longevity to prove whether the up-front cost is a reliable parameter for the ICD purchasing-process. METHODS. Longevity of single chamber (SC), double chamber (DC), and biventricular (BiV) ICDs from Medtronic (MDT), Guidant (GDT), and St. Jude Medical (SJM) was measured in all the patients implanted in years 2000, 2001, 2002 who reached device replacement within December 31, 2009. The cost of each ICD (device + lead/s) was normalized for its own longevity. Data are expressed as median (25th-75th percentile).

RESULTS

A total of 123/153 patients completed the study, 70 percent being alive 8 years after implantation. MDT devices had a superior longevity compared with GDT and SJM (p < .001). Fifty-eight percent of replaced ICDs had a service life at least 1 year shorter than the manufacturers' prediction. Longer-lasting devices had a significantly lower daily cost: €4.8 (4.6-5.7) versus €6.8 (6.2-9.2) and €6.9 (6.2-7.6) for SC (p < .001); €6.9 (6.8-7.7) versus €12.6 (11.8-13.3) and €13.4 (10.3-16.1) for DC; €8.5 (8.3-10.3) versus €15.4 (15.1-15.8) and €14.6 (14.1-14.9) for BiV (p < .005).

CONCLUSIONS

The true cost of ICD treatment is strictly dependent on device longevity, whereas device up-front cost is unreliable. This aspect should be valued in the technology purchasing process, and could set the basis for an outcome-based reimbursement system. Our observations may be the benchmark respectively for ICD longevity and daily ICD cost in future comparisons. Independent observations in the real-life scenario are needed to properly value newer technologic improvements.