Key result
Cardiac rehabilitation after valve surgery shows no difference in societal costs or QALYs versus usual care.
Why the study?
Does cardiac rehabilitation improve cost-effectiveness and quality-adjusted life years compared to usual care in patients after heart valve surgery?
RCT (n=147)
randomised
Does cardiac rehabilitation improve cost-effectiveness and quality-adjusted life years compared to usual care in patients after heart valve surgery?
Mean Difference: -1609 (95% CI -6162–2942)
Cardiac rehabilitation after heart valve surgery is likely to be cost-effective for society, driven by a tendency towards cost savings, despite not significantly improving health-related quality of life at 6 months.
Should not prompt routine cardiac rehabilitation after valve surgery; leaves open targeted programs in selected patients.
Background While cardiac rehabilitation in patients with ischaemic heart disease and heart failure is considered cost-effective, this evidence may not be transferable to heart valve surgery patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation following heart valve surgery. Design We conducted a cost-utility analysis based on a randomised controlled trial of 147 patients who had undergone heart valve surgery and were followed for 6 months. Methods Patients were randomised to cardiac rehabilitation consisting of 12 weeks of physical exercise training and monthly psycho-educational consultations or to usual care. Costs were measured from a societal perspective and quality-adjusted life years were based on the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D). Estimates were presented as means and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) based on bootstrapping. Costs and effect differences were presented in a cost-effectiveness plane and were transformed into net benefit and presented in cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results No statistically significant differences were found in total societal costs (-1609 Euros; 95% CI: -6162 to 2942 Euros) or in quality-adjusted life years (-0.000; 95% CI -0.021 to 0.020) between groups. However, approximately 70% of the cost and effect differences were located below the x-axis in the cost-effectiveness plane, and the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that the probability for cost- effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation compared to usual care is at minimum 75%, driven by a tendency towards costs savings. Conclusions Cardiac rehabilitation after heart valve surgery may not have improved health-related quality of life in this study, but is likely to be cost-effective for society, outweighing the extra costs of cardiac rehabilitation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hansen et al. (2017) conducted an RCT in heart valve surgery (n=147). cardiac rehabilitation vs. usual care was evaluated on total societal costs (MD -1609 Euros, 95% CI -6162 to 2942). Cardiac rehabilitation after heart valve surgery showed no significant difference in total societal costs (difference -1609 Euros; 95% CI -6162 to 2942) or QALYs compared to usual care.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: