The cost-effectiveness of automatic implantable cardiac defibrillators: results from MADIT. Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial

The economics of heart failure care

Heart failure (HF) poses a significant economic burden in the US, with costs projected to reach $70 billion by 2030. Cost-effectiveness analyses play a pivotal role in assessing the economic value of HF therapies. In this review, we overview the cost-effectiveness of HF therapies and discuss ways to improve patient access. Based on current costs, guideline directed medical therapies for HF with reduced ejection fraction provide high economic value except for sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which provide intermediate economic value. Combining therapy with the four pillars of medical therapy also has intermediate economic value, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from $73,000 to $98,500/ quality adjusted life-years. High economic value procedures include cardiac resynchronization devices, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and coronary artery bypass surgery. In contrast, advanced HF therapies have previously demonstrated intermediate to low economic value, but newer data appear more favorable. Given the affordability challenges of HF therapies, additional efforts are needed to ensure optimal care for patients. The recent Inflation Reduction Act contains provisions to reform policy pertaining to drug price negotiation and out-of-pocket spending, as well as measures to increase access to existing programs, including the Medicare low-income subsidy. On a patient level, it is also important to encourage patient and physician awareness and discussions surrounding medical costs. Overall, a broad approach to improving available therapies and access to care is needed to reduce the growing clinical and economic morbidity of HF.

Implantable Cardiovascular Devices: Current and Emerging Technologies for Remote Heart Failure Monitoring

Heart failure remains a substantial socioeconomic burden to our health care system. With the aging of the population, the incidence is expected to rise in the ensuing years. Standard heart failure management strategies have failed to reduce hospitalizations and mortality. In patients with heart failure, remote hemodynamic monitoring with implantable devices provides essential data, which can be used in unison with standard patient management to reduce heart failure hospitalizations. This review will chronicle the important clinical trials of various implantable devices and describe the emerging technologies in remote heart failure management. Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices, namely implanted cardioverter-defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices with defibrillator, have evolved beyond sole resynchronization and currently can deliver real-time cardiac hemodynamics. Clinical data regarding hemodynamic monitoring with implanted cardioverter-defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices with defibrillator have not consistently demonstrated a reduction in heart failure or mortality benefit. However, there is promise in the future with the application of multiparameter diagnostic algorithms with these devices. The most efficacious implantable device has been the pulmonary artery pressure sensor, CardioMEMS. This device has been proven to be safe and shown to reduce heart failure hospitalizations. Moreover, multiple newly developed devices are currently under investigation after successful first-in-man studies.

Net-benefit regression with censored cost-effectiveness data from randomized or observational studies

Cost-effectiveness analysis is an essential part of the evaluation of new medical interventions. While in many studies both costs and effectiveness (eg, survival time) are censored, standard survival analysis techniques are often invalid due to the induced dependent censoring problem. We propose methods for censored cost-effectiveness data using the net-benefit regression framework, which allow covariate-adjustment and subgroup identification when comparing two intervention groups. The methods provide a straightforward way to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves with censored data. We also propose a more efficient doubly robust estimator of average causal incremental net benefit, which increases the likelihood that the results will represent a valid inference in observational studies. Lastly, we conduct extensive numerical studies to examine the finite-sample performance of the proposed methods, and illustrate the proposed methods with a real data example using both survival time and quality-adjusted survival time as the measures of effectiveness.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021.

STRUCTURE

Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

Same-day discharge after implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Due to an increasing need for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) placement, the cost of healthcare has been rising including the cost of hospital stay after the procedure. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and feasibility of same-day discharge (SDD) after cardiac device implantations.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, and Embase databases from inception to March 2021 to identify studies that compared clinical outcomes between SDD group and hospital overnight stay (HO) group after cardiac device implantations. Outcomes included complications after the procedure, mortality, and re-hospitalization. Data from each study were combined using the random-effects model to calculate pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Eight studies (one randomized control trial, three prospective cohort and four retrospective cohort studies) with a total of 61,602 patients (4153 in SDD group and 57,449 in HO group) were included. SDD was not associated with more procedure-related complications. The rates of wound problems (0.94% vs 1.84%, pooled OR = 0.86, 95%CI: 0.2-3.68, p = .834), pneumothorax (1.15% vs 0.73%, pooled OR = 1.36, 95%CI: 0.26-7.12, p = .718), hematoma (0.59% vs 2.32%, pooled OR = 0.35, 95%CI:0.01-9.85, p = .534), lead/device dislodgement (4% vs 2.48%, pooled OR = 1.71, 95%CI: 0.64-4.54, p = .281), readmission rate (17.6% vs 17.5%, pooled OR = 0.95, 95%CI: 0.74-1.21, p = .667), and mortality rate (1.66% vs 1.44%, pooled OR = 0.77, 95%CI: 0.58-1.01, p = .059) were similar between in SDD and HO groups respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis suggested that SDD after cardiac device implantations might be a safe and feasible alternative to HO without differences in procedure-related complications, readmission rates, or mortality rates.

Recent temporal trends in hospital costs for non-surgical patients receiving implantable cardioverter defibrillators

PURPOSE

Many studies have analyzed the cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), but hospital costs have not been as thoroughly reported. This study reviewed the associated hospital costs for non-surgical patients who received ICDs from 2015 to 2019.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective single-center analysis of patients who received an ICD between 2015 and 2019. ICD cost was analyzed with respect to time using linear regression t-test analysis.

RESULTS

For 304 patients, we trended cost of the devices over time. 168 (55.2%) cases were single-chamber devices, 53 (17.4%) were dual-chamber, 59 (19.4%) were cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators (CRT-D), and 24 (7.9%) were subcutaneous devices. The cost of all ICDs decreased by -$1.82/day (p<0.001), R² = 0.056. By type, cost of single-chamber devices decreased by -$2.56/day (p<0.001), R² = 0.47, dual-chamber ICD by -$3.50/day (p<0.001), R² = 0.51, CRT-D by -$4.07/day (p<0.001), R² = 0.47, and subcutaneous by -$3.33/day (p<0.001), R² = 0.83.

CONCLUSION

This is the first detailed analysis of ICD costs that we are aware of. The cost of all ICDs decreased modestly and became much greater when categorized by type. Overall hospital cost associated with ICD implantation did not show a significant trend, but total supply cost showed a significant decrease over time.

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Therapy in Heart Failure

The population of patients with heart failure continues to grow, which introduced significant challenges in clinical practice related to the management of cardiac arrhythmia and advanced heart failure syndromes. Device therapy has increasingly become essential in the management of life-threatening arrhythmia and clinical heart failure in this population. This review will discuss the use of cardiac implantable electronic devices in heart failure with primary focus on sudden cardiac death prevention and cardiac resynchronization, including published evidence and evolving technologies.

Decision-making regarding primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators among older adults

Most implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are implanted for the purpose of primary prevention of sudden cardiac death among older patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Shared decision‐making prior to device implantation is guideline‐recommended and payer‐mandated. This article summarizes patient and provider attitudes toward device placement, device efficacy and effectiveness, potential periprocedural complications, long‐term events such as shocks, quality of life, costs, and shared decision‐making principles and recommendations. Most patients eligible for an ICD anticipate more than 10 years of survival. Physicians are less likely to offer an ICD to patients ≥80 years of age given a perceived lack of benefit. There is a dearth of data from randomized clinical trials addressing device efficacy among older patients; there is a need for more research in this area. However, currently available data support the use of ICDs irrespective of age provided life expectancy exceeds 1 year. Advanced age is independently associated with complications at the time of device placement but not the risk of device infection. The risk of inappropriate shock may be comparable or lower than that of younger patients. While quality of life is generally not adversely impacted by an ICD, a subset of patients experience post‐traumatic stress disorder. ICDs are cost‐effective from societal and health care sector perspectives; however, out‐of‐pocket costs vary according to insurance type and level. Shared decision‐making encounters may be incremental and iterative in nature. Providers are encouraged to partner with their patients, providing them counsel tailored to their values, preferences, and clinical presentation inclusive of age.

Estimating the quantile medical cost under time-dependent covariates and right censored time-to-event variable based on a state process

Estimating the medical costs from disease diagnosis to a terminal event is of immense interest to researchers. However, most of existing literature on such research focused on the estimation of cumulative mean function (CMF) for history process. In this paper, the combined scheme of both inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW) technique and longitudinal quantile regression model is used to develop a novel procedure to the estimation of cumulative quantile function (CQF) based on history process with time-dependent covariates and right censored time-to-event variable. The consistency of proposed estimator is derived. The extensive simulation study is conducted to investigate the performance of the estimator given in this paper. A medical cost data from a multicenter automatic defibrillator implantation trial (MADIT) is analyzed to illustrate the application of developed method.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pharmacomechanical Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis Versus Standard Anticoagulation in Patients With Proximal Deep Vein Thrombosis: Results From the ATTRACT Trial

BACKGROUND

In patients with acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis (PCDT) in conjunction with anticoagulation therapy is increasingly used with the goal of preventing postthrombotic syndrome. Long-term costs and cost-effectiveness of these 2 treatment strategies from the perspective of the US healthcare system have not been compared.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between 2009 and 2014, the ATTRACT trial (Acute Venous Thrombosis: Thrombus Removal With Adjunctive Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis) randomized 692 patients with acute proximal DVT to PCDT plus anticoagulation (n=337) or standard treatment with anticoagulation alone (n=355). Costs (2017 US dollars) were assessed over a 24-month follow-up period using a combination of resource-based costing, hospital bills, Medicare reimbursement rates, and the Drug Topics Red Book. Health state utilities were obtained from the Short Form-36. In-trial results and US life tables were used to develop a Markov cohort model to evaluate lifetime cost-effectiveness. For the PCDT group, mean costs of the initial procedure were $13 600; per-patient costs associated with the index hospitalization were $21 509 for PCDT and $3877 for standard care (difference=$17 632; 95% CI, $16 117-$19 243). The 24-month difference in costs was $20 045 (95% CI, $16 093-$24 120). Utility scores increased significantly between baseline and 6 months for both groups, with no significant differences between groups at any follow-up time point. Projected differences in lifetime costs of $16 740 and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.08, yield an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for PCDT of $222 041/QALY gained. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability that PCDT would achieve a lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50 000/QALY or <$150 000/QALY was 1% and 25%, respectively. For iliofemoral DVT, QALY gains with PCDT were greater, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $137 526/QALY; for femoral-popliteal DVT, standard therapy was an economically dominant strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

With an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio >$200 000/QALY gained, PCDT is not an economically attractive treatment for proximal DVT. PCDT may be of intermediate value in patients with iliofemoral DVT. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00790335.

Implantable cardiac defibrillators for people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy

BACKGROUND

There is evidence that implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention in people with an ischaemic cardiomyopathy improves survival rate. The evidence supporting this intervention in people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy is not as definitive, with the recently published DANISH trial finding no improvement in survival rate. A systematic review of all eligible studies was needed to evaluate the benefits and harms of using ICDs for primary prevention in people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of using compared to not using ICD for primary prevention in people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy receiving optimal medical therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Web of Science Core Collection on 10 October 2018. For ongoing or unpublished clinical trials, we searched the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and the ISRCTN registry. To identify economic evaluation studies, we conducted a separate search to 31 March 2015 of the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and from March 2015 to October 2018 on MEDLINE and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials involving adults with chronic non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy due to a left ventricular systolic dysfunction with an ejection fraction of 35% or less (New York Heart Association (NYHA) type I-IV). Participants in the intervention arm should have received ICD in addition to optimal medical therapy, while those in the control arm received optimal medical therapy alone. We included studies with cardiac resynchronisation therapy when it was appropriately balanced in the experimental and control groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, sudden cardiac death, and adverse events associated with the intervention. The secondary outcomes were non-cardiovascular death, health-related quality of life, hospitalisation for heart failure, first ICD-related hospitalisation, and cost. We abstracted the log (hazard ratio) and its variance from trial reports for time-to-event survival data. We extracted the raw data necessary to calculate the risk ratio. We summarised data on quality of life and cost-effectiveness narratively. We assessed the certainty of evidence for all outcomes using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six eligible randomised trials with a total of 3128 participants. The use of ICD plus optimal medical therapy versus optimal medical therapy alone decreases the risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.92; participants = 3128; studies = 6; high-certainty evidence). An average of 24 patients need to be treated with ICD to prevent one additional death from any cause (number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 24). Individuals younger than 65 derive more benefit than individuals older than 65 (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.91; participants = 348; studies = 1) (NNTB = 10). When added to medical therapy, ICDs probably decrease cardiovascular mortality compared to not adding them (risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.21; participants = 1781; studies = 4; moderate-certainty evidence) (possibility of both plausible benefit and no effect). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator was also found to decrease sudden cardiac deaths (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.70; participants = 1677; studies = 3; high-certainty evidence). An average of 25 patients need to be treated with an ICD to prevent one additional sudden cardiac death (NNTB = 25). We found that ICDs probably increase adverse events (possibility of both plausible harm and benefit), but likely have little or no effect on non-cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.68; participants = 1781; studies = 4; moderate-certainty evidence) (possibility of both plausible benefit and no effect). Finally, using ICD therapy probably has little or no effect on quality of life, however shocks from the device cause a deterioration in quality of life. No study reported the outcome of first ICD-related hospitalisations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of ICD in addition to medical therapy in people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy decreases all-cause mortality and sudden cardiac deaths and probably decreases mortality from cardiovascular causes compared to medical therapy alone. Their use probably increases the risk for adverse events. However, these devices come at a high cost, and shocks from ICDs cause a deterioration in quality of life.

Developing a risk score to predict mortality in the first year after implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation: Data from the Israeli ICD Registry

INTRODUCTION

Life expectancy of less than 1 year is usually a contraindication for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation. The aim was to identify patients at risk of death during the first year after implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data were derived from a prospective Israeli ICD Registry. Two groups of patients were compared, those who died and those who were alive 1 year after ICD implantation. Factors associated with 1-year mortality were identified on a derivation cohort. A risk score was established and validated. A total of 2617 patients have completed 1 year of follow-up after ICD or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) implantation. Age greater than 75 years (hazard ratio [HR], 2.7; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.6 to 4.4), atrial fibrillation (AF; HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.12 to 3.17), chronic lung disease (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1 to 3.76), anemia (HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.93) and chronic renal failure (CRF; HR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.74 to 6.6) were independent risk factors for 1-year mortality. We propose a simple AAACC ("triple A double C") score for prediction of 1-year mortality after ICD implantation: Age greater than 75 years (3 points(pts)), anemia (2 pts), AF (1 pt), CRF (3 pts) and chronic lung disease (1 pt). Mortality risk increased with rising number of points (from 1% with 0 pts to 12.5% with >4 pts). The risk score was evaluated with receiver operating characteristic curve and the area under the curve of the validation curve is 0.71 (95% CI, 0.66 to 0.76).

CONCLUSIONS

Age greater than 75, AF, chronic lung disease, anemia, and CRF were independent risk factors for 1-year mortality. AAACC risk score identifies patients at high risk of death during 1 year after ICD implantation.

Cost-Effectiveness of Long-Term Ticagrelor in Patients With Prior Myocardial Infarction: Results From the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 Trial

BACKGROUND

In patients with a myocardial infarction (MI) 1 to 3 years earlier, treatment with ticagrelor + low-dose aspirin (ASA) reduces the risk of cardiovascular (CV) death, MI, or stroke compared with low-dose aspirin alone, but at an increased risk of major bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

The authors evaluated cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor + low-dose ASA in patients with prior MI within the prior 3 years.

METHODS

The authors performed a prospective economic substudy alongside the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 54) trial, which randomized 21,162 patients to ASA alone, ticagrelor 60 mg twice daily + low-dose ASA, or ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily + low-dose ASA. Medical resource use data were collected over a median 33-month follow-up. Costs were assessed from the U.S. health care system perspective. In-trial data relating to survival, utility, and costs were combined with lifetime projections to evaluate lifetime cost-effectiveness of the Food and Drug Administration-approved lower-dose ticagrelor regimen (60 mg twice daily).

RESULTS

Hospitalization costs were similar for ticagrelor 60 mg and placebo ($2,262 vs. $2,333; 95% confidence interval for difference -$303 to $163; p = 0.54); after inclusion of a daily ticagrelor 60 mg cost of $10.52, total costs were higher for ticagrelor ($10,016 vs. $2,333; 95% CI: $7,441 to $7,930; p < 0.001). In-trial quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were similar (2.28 vs. 2.27; p = 0.34). Over a lifetime horizon, ticagrelor was associated with QALY gains of 0.078 and incremental costs of $7,435, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $94,917/QALY gained. Several high-risk groups had more favorable ICERs, including patients with >1 prior MI, multivessel disease, diabetes, renal dysfunction (all with ICERs $50,000 to $70,000/QALY gained), patients age <75 years (ICER = $44,779/QALY gained), and patients with peripheral artery disease (ICER = $13,427/QALY gained).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with a history of MI >1 year previously, long-term treatment with ticagrelor 60 mg + low-dose ASA yields a cost-effectiveness ratio suggesting intermediate value based on current guidelines. Ticagrelor appears to provide higher value for patients in several recognized high-risk subgroups. (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events [e.g., Death From Heart or Vascular Disease, Heart Attack, or Stroke] in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin [PEGASUS]; NCT01225562).

Patient barriers to implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction

INTRODUCTION

Device therapy is efficacious in preventing sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with reduced ejection fraction. However, few who need the device eventually opt to undergo implantation and even fewer reconsider their decisions after deliberation. This is due to many factors, including unresolved patient barriers. This study identified the factors that influenced patients' decision to decline implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation, and those that influenced patients who initially declined an implant to reconsider having one.

METHODS

A single-centre survey was conducted among 240 patients who had heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and met the ICD implantation criteria, but had declined ICD implantation.

RESULTS

Participants who refused ICD implantation were mostly male (84%), Chinese (71%), married (72%), currently employed (54%), and had up to primary or secondary education (78%) and monthly income of < SGD 3,000 (51%). Those who were more likely to reconsider their decision were aware that SCD was a consequence of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, knowledgeable of the preventive role of ICDs, currently employed and aware that their doctor strongly recommended the implant. Based on multivariate analysis, knowledge of the role of ICDs for primary prophylaxis was the most important factor influencing patient decision.

CONCLUSION

This study identified the demographic and social factors of patients who refused ICD therapy. Knowledge of the role of ICDs in preventing SCD was found to be the strongest marker for reconsidering ICD implantation. Measures to address this information gap may lead to higher rates of ICD implantation.

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.

Cardiac Pacing and Defibrillation Devices: Cost and Effectiveness

Implantable cardiac pacing and defibrillation devices are effective and commonly used therapies for patients with cardiac rhythm disorders. Because device implantation is not easily reversible, as well as the high healthcare costs inherent in device use, a clear understanding of the clinical benefits relative to costs is essential for both appropriate clinical use and rational policy making. Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) have been among the best-investigated therapies in medicine; these devices have been the topic of numerous clinical and economic evaluations during the past 30 years. However, many important questions remain unclarified. We review the evidence supporting the clinical benefits of CIEDs, including effectiveness in extending survival as well as improving quality of life. We also summarize the economic studies that have investigated costs associated with these devices and their overall cost effectiveness, and we highlight important potential areas for future research.

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.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators for the treatment of arrhythmias and cardiac resynchronisation therapy for the treatment of heart failure: systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

This assessment updates and expands on two previous technology assessments that evaluated implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for arrhythmias and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) for heart failure (HF).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ICDs in addition to optimal pharmacological therapy (OPT) for people at increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) as a result of ventricular arrhythmias despite receiving OPT; to assess CRT with or without a defibrillator (CRT-D or CRT-P) in addition to OPT for people with HF as a result of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and cardiac dyssynchrony despite receiving OPT; and to assess CRT-D in addition to OPT for people with both conditions.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic resources including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception to November 2012. Additional studies were sought from reference lists, clinical experts and manufacturers' submissions to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

REVIEW METHODS

Inclusion criteria were applied by two reviewers independently. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second. Data were synthesised through narrative review and meta-analyses. For the three populations above, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing (1) ICD with standard therapy, (2) CRT-P or CRT-D with each other or with OPT and (3) CRT-D with OPT, CRT-P or ICD were eligible. Outcomes included mortality, adverse events and quality of life. A previously developed Markov model was adapted to estimate the cost-effectiveness of OPT, ICDs, CRT-P and CRT-D in the three populations by simulating disease progression calculated at 4-weekly cycles over a lifetime horizon.

RESULTS

A total of 4556 references were identified, of which 26 RCTs were included in the review: 13 compared ICD with medical therapy, four compared CRT-P/CRT-D with OPT and nine compared CRT-D with ICD. ICDs reduced all-cause mortality in people at increased risk of SCD, defined in trials as those with previous ventricular arrhythmias/cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction (MI) > 3 weeks previously, non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (depending on data included) or ischaemic/non-ischaemic HF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 35%. There was no benefit in people scheduled for coronary artery bypass graft. A reduction in SCD but not all-cause mortality was found in people with recent MI. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from £14,231 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) to £29,756 per QALY for the scenarios modelled. CRT-P and CRT-D reduced mortality and HF hospitalisations, and improved other outcomes, in people with HF as a result of LVSD and cardiac dyssynchrony when compared with OPT. The rate of SCD was lower with CRT-D than with CRT-P but other outcomes were similar. CRT-P and CRT-D compared with OPT produced ICERs of £27,584 per QALY and £27,899 per QALY respectively. The ICER for CRT-D compared with CRT-P was £28,420 per QALY. In people with both conditions, CRT-D reduced the risk of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalisation, and improved other outcomes, compared with ICDs. Complications were more common with CRT-D. Initial management with OPT alone was most cost-effective (ICER £2824 per QALY compared with ICD) when health-related quality of life was kept constant over time. Costs and QALYs for CRT-D and CRT-P were similar. The ICER for CRT-D compared with ICD was £27,195 per QALY and that for CRT-D compared with OPT was £35,193 per QALY.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations of the model include the structural assumptions made about disease progression and treatment provision, the extrapolation of trial survival estimates over time and the assumptions made around parameter values when evidence was not available for specific patient groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In people at risk of SCD as a result of ventricular arrhythmias and in those with HF as a result of LVSD and cardiac dyssynchrony, the interventions modelled produced ICERs of < £30,000 per QALY gained. In people with both conditions, the ICER for CRT-D compared with ICD, but not CRT-D compared with OPT, was < £30,000 per QALY, and the costs and QALYs for CRT-D and CRT-P were similar. A RCT comparing CRT-D and CRT-P in people with HF as a result of LVSD and cardiac dyssynchrony is required, for both those with and those without an ICD indication. A RCT is also needed into the benefits of ICD in non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy in the absence of dyssynchrony.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO number CRD42012002062.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Median-based incremental cost-effectiveness ratios with censored data

Cost-effectiveness is an essential part of treatment evaluation, in addition to effectiveness. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, a measure called the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is widely utilized, and the mean cost and the mean (quality-adjusted) life years have served as norms to summarize cost and effectiveness for a study population. Recently, the median-based ICER was proposed for complementary or sensitivity analysis purposes. In this article, we extend this method when some data are censored.

Outcomes of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator use in patients with comorbidities: results from a combined analysis of 4 randomized clinical trials

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine if the benefit of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) is modulated by medical comorbidity.

BACKGROUND

Primary prevention ICDs improve survival in patients at risk for sudden cardiac death. Their benefit in patients with significant comorbid illness has not been demonstrated.

METHODS

Original, patient-level datasets from MADIT I (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial I), MADIT II, DEFINITE (Defibrillators in Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathy Treatment Evaluation), and SCD-HeFT (Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial) were combined. Patients in the combined population (N = 3,348) were assessed with respect to the following comorbidities: smoking, pulmonary disease, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, atrial fibrillation, ischemic heart disease, and chronic kidney disease. The primary outcome was overall mortality, using the hazard ratio (HR) of time to death for patients receiving an ICD versus no ICD by extent of medical comorbidity, and adjusted for age, sex, race, left ventricular ejection fraction, use of antiarrhythmic drugs, beta-blockers, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors.

RESULTS

Overall, 25% of patients (n = 830) had <2 comorbid conditions versus 75% (n = 2,518) with significant comorbidity (≥2). The unadjusted hazard of death for patients with an ICD versus no ICD was significantly lower, but this effect was less for patients with ≥2 comorbidities (unadjusted HR: 0.71; 95% confidence interval: 0.61 to 0.84) compared with those with <2 comorbidities (unadjusted HR: 0.59; 95% confidence interval: 0.40 to 0.87). After adjustment, the benefit of an ICD decreased with increasing number of comorbidities (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with extensive comorbid medical illnesses may experience less benefit from primary prevention ICDs than those with less comorbidity; implantation should be carefully considered in sick patients. Further study of ICDs in medically complex patients is warranted.

Sudden cardiac death from the perspective of coronary artery disease

Sudden cardiac death accounts for approximately 50% of all deaths attributed to cardiovascular disease in the United States. It is most commonly associated with coronary artery disease and can be its initial manifestation or may occur in the period after an acute myocardial infarction. Decreasing the rate of sudden cardiac death requires the identification and treatment of at-risk patients through evidence-based pharmacotherapy and interventional strategies aimed at primary and secondary prevention. For this review, we searched PubMed for potentially relevant articles published from January 1, 1970, through March 1, 2014, using the following key search terms: sudden cardiac death, ischemic heart disease, coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, and cardiac arrest. Searches were enhanced by scanning bibliographies of identified articles, and those deemed relevant were selected for full-text review. This review outlines various mechanisms for sudden cardiac death in the setting of coronary artery disease, describes risk factors for sudden cardiac death, explores the management of cardiac arrest, and outlines optimal practice for the monitoring and treatment of patients after an acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction to decrease the risk of sudden death.

The prognostic impact of myocardial late gadolinium enhancement

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance using late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) provides a unique opportunity to assess myocardial tissue in vivo. LGE enables tissue characterization in ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathies and other cardiac diseases. LGE is associated with adverse clinical outcomes across a range of different cardiac conditions and may improve risk stratification for death, sudden cardiac death, or serious adverse events beyond traditional prognostic markers. Generally, matching data for the prognostic impact of LGE are frequently reached in cardiac disorders. In other diseases, only a limited number of trials are available, but it is anticipated that the prognostic impact of delayed enhancement will become evident. The development and validation of new cardiovascular magnetic resonance methods for diffuse myocardial fibrosis measurements would even improve the prognostic impact of LGE. The evaluation of diffuse myocardial fibrosis has a great potential in large-scale diseases, including their initial phases, with the possibility to identify patients at risk for subsequent development of clinical heart failure, to assess repeatedly the stage and progression of cardiac diseases, and to monitor the effect of treatment.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis: a proposal of new reporting standards in statistical analysis

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a method for evaluating the outcomes and costs of competing strategies designed to improve health, and has been applied to a variety of different scientific fields. Yet there are inherent complexities in cost estimation and CEA from statistical perspectives (e.g., skewness, bidimensionality, and censoring). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio that represents the additional cost per unit of outcome gained by a new strategy has served as the most widely accepted methodology in the CEA. In this article, we call for expanded perspectives and reporting standards reflecting a more comprehensive analysis that can elucidate different aspects of available data. Specifically, we propose that mean- and median-based incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and average cost-effectiveness ratios be reported together, along with relevant summary and inferential statistics, as complementary measures for informed decision making.

The Healthcare and Technology Synergy (HATS) Framework for Comparative Effectiveness Research as Part of Evidence-Based Practice in Vascular Access

The development of frameworks for nursing research, practice, and education is in its infancy. The focus in clinical research has commonly been on the variables patient and practice, not on the significant variable, technology products. However, in interventional and medical cardiology and orthopedic surgery, for example, products used are significant variables that affect clinical outcomes and subsequent recalls. The purpose of this article is to introduce the Healthcare and Technology Synergy (HATS) framework and discuss its use in comparative effectiveness research on health care-associated infections as well as its usefulness in nursing practice, education, and policy. Research in nursing that focuses on product as a variable has examined intravenous connectors and their association with catheter-related bloodstream infections, but more research specific to technology products is needed. The significance of products in nursing has been underappreciated, and the variable has been underutilized in research. This is a study limitation that can significantly affect research outcomes. Use of the HATS framework in nursing research can facilitate the development of clinically relevant nursing curricula, practice interventions, and policy based on research results. Appropriate development and evaluation of research that uses the HATS framework also has implications for cost-benefit analyses, product evaluation, and implementation of evidence-based practices.

Cost-effectiveness of heart failure therapies

Heart failure (HF) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Management of HF involves accurate diagnosis and implementation of evidence-based treatment strategies. Costs related to the care of patients with HF have increased substantially over the past 2 decades, partly owing to new medications and diagnostic tests, increased rates of hospitalization, implantation of costly novel devices and, as the disease progresses, consideration for heart transplantation, mechanical circulatory support, and end-of-life care. Not surprisingly, HF places a huge burden on health-care systems, and widespread implementation of all potentially beneficial therapies for HF could prove unrealistic for many, if not all, nations. Cost-effectiveness analyses can help to quantify the relationship between clinical outcomes and the economic implications of available therapies. This Review is a critical overview of cost-effectiveness studies on key areas of HF management, involving pharmacological and nonpharmacological clinical therapies, including device-based and surgical therapeutic strategies.

Estimating incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and their confidence intervals with different terminating events for survival time and costs

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is an important component of the economic evaluation of new treatment options. In many clinical and observational studies of costs, censored data pose challenges to the CEA. We consider a special situation where the terminating events for the survival time and costs are different. Traditional methods for statistical inference offer no means for dealing with censored data in these circumstances. To address this gap, we propose a new method for deriving the confidence interval for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The simulation studies and real data example show that our method performs very well for some practical settings, revealing a great potential for application to actual settings in which terminating events for the survival time and costs differ.

Cost-effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy in the MADIT-CRT trial

BACKGROUND

The Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT) trial demonstrated that cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) when added to the implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) reduces risk of heart failure or death in minimally symptomatic patients with reduced cardiac ejection fraction and wide QRS complex.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate 4-year cost-effectiveness of CRT-ICD compared to ICD alone using MADIT-CRT data.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Patients enrolled in the trial were randomized to implantation of either ICD or CRT-ICD in a 2:3 ratio, with up to 4-year follow-up period. Cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted, and sensitivity analyses by age, gender, and left bundle branch block (LBBB) conduction pattern were performed.

SUBJECTS

A total of 1,271 patients with ICD or CRT-ICD (US centers only) who reported healthcare utilization and health-related quality of life data.

MEASURES

We used the EQ-5D (US weights) to assess patient HRQOL and translated utilization data to costs using national Medicare reimbursement rates.

RESULTS

Average 4-year healthcare expenditures in CRT-ICD patients were higher than costs of ICD patients ($62,600 vs 57,050, P = 0.015), mainly due to the device and implant-related costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CRT-ICD compared to ICD was $58,330/quality-adjusted life years (QALY) saved. The cost effectiveness improved with longer time horizon and for the LBBB subgroup ($7,320/QALY), with no cost-effectiveness benefit being evident in the non-LBBB group.

CONCLUSIONS

In minimally symptomatic patients with low ejection fraction and LBBB, CRT-ICD is cost effective within 4-year horizon when compared to ICD-only.

Average cost-effectiveness ratio with censored data

In cost-effectiveness analysis, interest could lie foremost in the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which is the ratio of the incremental cost to the incremental benefit of two competing interventions. The average cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER) is the ratio of the cost to benefit of an intervention without reference to a comparator. A vast literature is available for statistical inference of the ICERs, but limited methods have been developed for the ACERs, particularly in the presence of censoring. Censoring is a common feature in prospective studies, and valid analyses should properly adjust for censoring in cost as well as in effectiveness. In this article, we propose statistical methods for constructing a confidence interval for the ACER from censored data. Different methods-Fieller, Taylor, bootstrap-are proposed, and through simulation studies and data analysis, we address the performance characteristics of these methods.