Key result
Primary prevention ICD implantation added an estimated 1.73 QALYs, with an ICER of €35,837 per QALY gained for single-chamber and €37,756 for dual-chamber devices.
Why the study?
Is primary prevention single-chamber or dual-chamber ICD implantation cost-effective in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction?
Observational
No
Is primary prevention single-chamber or dual-chamber ICD implantation cost-effective in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction?
Effect estimate: ICER €35,837 (single-chamber) and €37,756 (dual-chamber) (95% CI €28,368-€44,460 (single-chamber); €29,055-€46,050 (dual-chamber))
Primary prevention ICD therapy in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction appears to be cost-effective in routine clinical practice, with an ICER of approximately €35,000 to €37,000 per QALY gained.
May support cost-effectiveness of primary prevention ICDs in reduced LVEF; leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
BACKGROUND: Although randomized trials have shown the beneficial effect on survival of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) as primary prevention therapy in selected patients, data concerning the cost-effectiveness in routine clinical practice remain scarce. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of primary prevention ICD implantation in the real world. METHODS: Patients receiving primary prevention single-chamber or dual-chamber ICD implantation at the Leiden University Medical Center were included in the study. Using a Markov model, lifetime cost, life years (LYs), and gained quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated for device recipients and control patients. Data on mortality, complication rates, and device longevity were retrieved from our center and entered into the Markov model. To account for model assumptions, one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Importantly, calculations for the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness rate (ICER) per QALY gained are based on several numbers of assumptions, and accordingly findings may have over- or underestimated the cost-effectiveness of ICD therapy. RESULTS: Primary prevention ICD implantation adds an estimated mean of 2.07 LYs and 1.73 QALYs. Increased lifetime cost for single-chamber and dual-chamber ICD recipients were estimated at €60,788 and €64,216, respectively. This resulted for single-chamber ICD recipients, in an estimated ICER of €35,154 per QALY gained. In dual-chamber ICD recipients, an estimated ICER of €37,111 per QALY gained was calculated. According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, estimated cost per QALY gained are €35,837 (95% confidence interval [CI]: €28,368-€44,460) for single-chamber and €37,756 (95% CI: €29,055-€46,050) for dual-chamber ICDs. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of data and detailed costs, derived from routine clinical practice, ICD therapy in selected patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction appears to be cost-effective.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thijssen et al. (2013) conducted an observational in Reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. Primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) vs. Control patients was evaluated on Incremental cost-effectiveness rate (ICER) per QALY gained (ICER €35,837 (single-chamber) and €37,756 (dual-chamber), 95% CI €28,368-€44,460 (single-chamber); €29,055-€46,050 (dual-chamber)). Primary prevention ICD implantation added an estimated 1.73 QALYs, with an ICER of €35,837 per QALY gained for single-chamber and €37,756 for dual-chamber devices.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: