Key result
Routine use of an antibacterial envelope during CIED procedures is unlikely to be cost-effective for most patients, but may be cost-effective at baseline infection rates >3% and cost-saving at >6%.
Why the study?
Intraoperative antibacterial envelopes reduce CIED infection risk at increased procedural costs, prompting a need to synthesize published economic literature on their cost-effectiveness.
Is an intraoperative antibacterial envelope cost-effective compared to standard of care in preventing post-operative CIED infection?
Systematic Review (n=7)
Is an intraoperative antibacterial envelope cost-effective compared to standard of care in preventing post-operative CIED infection?
The routine use of an antibacterial envelope during CIED procedures is not cost-effective for average-risk patients, but may provide value for those with a baseline infection risk exceeding 3%.
May inform selective envelope use in high-risk CIED procedures; leaves open standardized cost-effectiveness thresholds.
AIMS: Intraoperative use of an antibacterial envelope during surgery for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) surgery reduces infection risk at increased procedural costs. The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize the published economic literature on the cost-effectiveness of the antibacterial envelope. METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic review of the published literature was conducted to identify economic evaluations (i.e. cost-utility, cost-effectiveness, and cost-benefit studies) comparing the antibacterial envelope compared with standard of care in preventing post-operative CIED infection. Systematic review best practices were followed, and study quality was assessed. Of 142 unique citations, 7 studies met the inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis. All cost-effectiveness studies were conducted from the healthcare payer perspective of high-income countries. The base case analysis of most economic studies (5/7) reported a cost per quality-adjusted life year gained that exceeded country-specific societal thresholds for good value in healthcare. Cost-effectiveness was highly dependent on the baseline infection risk. That is, at current pricing, the antibacterial envelope may be cost-effective at base infection rates of greater than 3%, and cost-savings at infection rates that exceed 6%. CONCLUSION: Routine use of an antibacterial envelope in patients undergoing CIED procedures (implantation or revision) is unlikely to be cost-effective except among those at high risk for post-operative infection. Individualized risk assessment may help guide efficient and value-based use of this technology.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mudigonda et al. (2025) conducted a systematic review in cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) surgery (n=7). antibacterial envelope vs. standard of care was evaluated on cost-effectiveness (cost per quality-adjusted life year gained). Routine use of an antibacterial envelope during CIED procedures is unlikely to be cost-effective for most patients, but may be cost-effective at baseline infection rates >3% and cost-saving at >6%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: