Key result
Current published modeling and clinical assessments of implantable cardioverter defibrillator cost-efficacy are inadequate to guide clinical practice.
Why the study?
Is implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy cost-effective for patients at risk of sudden cardiac death?
Is implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy cost-effective for patients at risk of sudden cardiac death?
There is a critical need for improved methodologies to assess the cost-effectiveness of high-technology therapies like ICDs to ensure appropriate patient access.
ICD cost-effectiveness improves with patient longevity; leaves open precise thresholds for broader use.
Cost-efficacy assessment of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy has proved contentious and may have limited uptake of ICD therapy, particularly in Europe. Published modeling assessments are too inaccurate to determine clinical practice, and assessments based on clinical studies are incomplete (from the cost-efficacy viewpoint). Although ICD therapy seems certain to be most cost-effective in patients who are likely to have good longevity if their risk of sudden cardiac death is countered, the benefit of ICD therapy is not necessarily limited to such groups. Physicians and health economists need to develop a better understanding of how to assess high-technology therapy costs so that uptake of such therapy is appropriately expedited with due regard to ethical and cost constraints.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
John M. Morgan (2002) conducted a review in Risk of sudden cardiac death. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy was evaluated. Current published modeling and clinical assessments of implantable cardioverter defibrillator cost-efficacy are inadequate to guide clinical practice.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: