Key result
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators are generally cost-effective for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in appropriately selected high-risk patients.
Why the study?
Is the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator cost-effective for the prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients with ischemic and non-ischemic heart disease?
Is the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator cost-effective for the prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients with ischemic and non-ischemic heart disease?
This review highlights economic tools to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ICDs, aiming to support rational decision-making among healthcare stakeholders.
The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is an example of an effective intervention with high up-front costs and delayed benefits. It has become a proven and well-accepted therapy not only for secondary but also for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients with ischemic and non-ischemic heart disease. In recent years, the international guidelines have extended the indications to the prophylactic ICD, increasing the number of eligible patients and, together, the financial challenges of a widespread implementation. In this article, we review the available economic tools that can help address the ICD cost issue. We think that the awareness of such knowledge may facilitate dialogues between physicians, administrators and policy-makers, and help foster rational decision making.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Boriani et al. (2014) conducted a review in Sudden cardiac death and heart failure. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) vs. Medical therapy or control was evaluated. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators are generally cost-effective for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in appropriately selected high-risk patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: