Why the study?
Patients with HF discharged from the hospital are at high risk for death and rehospitalization, but the cost-effectiveness of transitional care services to mitigate these risks was unestablished.
Are postdischarge transitional care services cost-effective compared to standard care in patients aged 75 years hospitalized with heart failure?
Are postdischarge transitional care services cost-effective compared to standard care in patients aged 75 years hospitalized with heart failure?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In older patients hospitalized with heart failure, transitional care services, particularly nurse home visits, are highly cost-effective compared to standard care.
Background: Patients with heart failure (HF) discharged from the hospital are at high risk for death and rehospitalization. Transitional care service interventions attempt to mitigate these risks. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of 3 types of postdischarge HF transitional care services and standard care. Design: Decision analytic microsimulation model. Data Sources: Randomized controlled trials, clinical registries, cohort studies, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention life tables, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data, and National Inpatient Sample (Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project) data. Target Population: Patients with HF who were aged 75 years at hospital discharge. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Health care sector. Intervention: Disease management clinics, nurse home visits (NHVs), and nurse case management. Outcome Measures: Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, net monetary benefits, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results of Base-Case Analysis: All 3 transitional care interventions examined were more costly and effective than standard care, with NHVs dominating the other 2 interventions. Compared with standard care, NHVs increased QALYs (2.49 vs. 2.25) and costs ($81 327 vs. $76 705), resulting in an ICER of $19 570 per QALY gained. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: Results were largely insensitive to variations in in-hospital mortality, age at baseline, or costs of rehospitalization. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed that transitional care services were preferred over standard care in nearly all 10 000 samples, at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50 000 or more per QALY gained. Limitation: Transitional care service designs and implementations are heterogeneous, leading to uncertainty about intervention effectiveness and costs when applied in particular settings. Conclusion: In older patients with HF, transitional care services are economically attractive, with NHVs being the most cost-effective strategy in many situations. Transitional care services should become the standard of care for postdischarge management of patients with HF. Primary Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation, Research Council of Norway, and an Intermountain-Stanford collaboration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Blum et al. (2020) studied Heart failure. Transitional care services (disease management clinics, nurse home visits, and nurse case management) vs. Standard care was evaluated on Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, net monetary benefits, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (ICER $19 570 per QALY gained).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: