Key result
Impella treatment significantly reduced the risk of mortality (HR 0.34) compared to conventional treatments in patients with fulminant myocarditis.
Why the study?
Fulminant myocarditis carries an extremely poor prognosis and Impella is a new therapeutic strategy, but reports regarding its health economics are lacking.
Does Impella treatment improve survival and cost-effectiveness in patients with fulminant myocarditis compared to combined ECMO and IABP treatment?
Cohort (n=14)
Yes
Does Impella treatment improve survival and cost-effectiveness in patients with fulminant myocarditis compared to combined ECMO and IABP treatment?
Hazard Ratio: 0.34 (95% CI 0.02–0.96)
Absolute Event Rate: 28.6% vs 57.1%
p-value: p=<0.05
Should not yet change practice in fulminant myocarditis; leaves open a causal Impella survival benefit.
BACKGROUND: Fulminant myocarditis (FM) is rare but has an extremely poor prognosis. Impella, a catheter-based heart pump, is a new therapeutic strategy, but reports regarding its health economics are lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: This retrospective cohort study compared Impella treatment (Group I) with existing treatments (Group E) using medical data collected from October 2017 to September 2021, with a 1-year analysis period. Cost-effectiveness indices were life-years (LY; effect index) and medical fee amount (cost index). Results were validated using probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated using quality-adjusted LY (QALY) and medical costs. Each group included 7 patients, and more than half (57.1%) received combined Impella plus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. There was no significant difference between Groups I and E in 1-year mortality rates (28.6% vs. 57.1%, respectively) or LY (mean [±SD] 163.1±128.3 vs. 107.8±127.3 days, respectively), but mortality risk was significantly lower in Group I than Group E (95% confidence interval 0.02-0.96; P<0.05). Compared with Group E, Group I had higher total costs (9,270,597±4,121,875 vs. 6,397,466±3,801,364 JPY/year; P=0.20) and higher cost-effectiveness (32,443,987±14,742,966 vs. 92,637,756±98,225,604 JPY/LY; P=0.74), which was confirmed in the sensitivity analysis. ICER probability distribution showed 23.2% and 51.5% reductions below 5 million and 10 million JPY/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Impella treatment is more cost-effective than conventional FM treatments. Large-scale studies are needed to validate the added effects and increasing costs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Takura et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Fulminant myocarditis (n=14). Impella treatment vs. Existing treatments (combined ECMO and IABP) was evaluated on Mortality (HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.02-0.96, p=<0.05). Impella treatment significantly reduced the risk of mortality (HR 0.34) compared to conventional treatments in patients with fulminant myocarditis.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: