Key result
Implantation of an ICD using a transvenous lead system significantly reduced total hospital charges ($54,142 vs $63,359, P<0.05) and length of stay (22 vs 29 days, P<0.05) compared to thoracotomy.
Why the study?
Does implantation of an ICD generator using transvenous leads reduce hospital charges and length of stay compared to an epicardial lead system via thoracotomy in patients requiring an ICD?
Population
48 patients undergoing implantation of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) generator
Comparison
Implantation of an ICD generator using… vs Implantation of an ICD generator with an…
Design
Cohort
Authors
Loading...
Transvenous ICD implantation was associated with lower charges and shorter stay; leaves open whether benefits hold in randomized or contemporary device comparisons.
Cohort (n=48)
Does implantation of an ICD generator using transvenous leads reduce hospital charges and length of stay compared to an epicardial lead system via thoracotomy in patients requiring an ICD?
Effect estimate: 15% decrease
Absolute Event Rate: 54142% vs 63359%
p-value: p=< 0.05
The use of transvenous lead systems for ICDs results in a significant reduction in hospital charges and length of stay compared to epicardial systems via thoracotomy.
Venditti et al. (1995) conducted a cohort in Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) indication (n=48). Transvenous lead system vs. Epicardial lead system via thoracotomy was evaluated on Total hospital charges (15% decrease, p=< 0.05). Implantation of an ICD using a transvenous lead system significantly reduced total hospital charges ($54,142 vs $63,359, P<0.05) and length of stay (22 vs 29 days, P<0.05) compared to thoracotomy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: