Key result
ICD therapy proves highly cost-effective for primary prevention in Brazil at ~R$21,000 per QALY.
Why the study?
ICD therapy for primary prevention of sudden cardiac arrest is well-established but underutilized globally, prompting evaluation of its cost-effectiveness in primary prevention patients with additional risk factors.
Does implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy improve cost-effectiveness compared to no ICD therapy in 1.5 primary prevention patients in Brazil?
Does implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy improve cost-effectiveness compared to no ICD therapy in 1.5 primary prevention patients in Brazil?
Effect estimate: ICER R$21,156/QALY (95% CI 15,293-46,619)
Absolute Event Rate: 9.85% vs 7.15%
ICD therapy is highly cost-effective for primary prevention patients with additional risk factors (1.5PP) in the Brazilian public healthcare system.
Supports ICD coverage in Brazil's public system; leaves open need for local outcome confirmation.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wherry et al. (2021) studied 1.5 primary prevention of sudden cardiac arrest (n=1,000). Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) therapy vs. No ICD therapy was evaluated on Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY (ICER R$21,156/QALY, 95% CI 15,293-46,619). Implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy is highly cost-effective for 1.5 primary prevention patients in Brazil, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of R$21,156 per QALY.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: