Key result
TriageHF Plus remote monitoring saves ~£3989 per person-lifetime versus usual care by reducing hospitalizations.
Why the study?
Data on the cost-effectiveness of the TriageHF Plus clinical pathway for remote monitoring of heart failure patients with CIEDs had not been published.
Is the TriageHF Plus pathway cost-effective compared to usual care for remote monitoring of heart failure patients with CIEDs?
Is the TriageHF Plus pathway cost-effective compared to usual care for remote monitoring of heart failure patients with CIEDs?
The TriageHF Plus pathway for device-based remote monitoring is highly cost-effective and cost-saving for heart failure patients with CIEDs in a UK public hospital setting.
Supports TriageHF Plus consideration in UK CIED-HF care; extends economic models but leaves open prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: In 2024, the UK National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended TriageHF alerts as an option for remote monitoring of patients with heart failure (HF) and a compatible cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED). Data on the cost-effectiveness of this approach has not been published. This research evaluates the cost-effectiveness of TriageHF Plus in public hospital settings, using data from the TriageHF Plus multicentre study (758 participants, NCT04177199). METHODS: An economic model was developed to capture the lifetime cost and benefits of TriageHF Plus versus usual care, based on a site of 300 eligible patients. Analysis on individual patient-level data informed model efficacy and resource use parameters. EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire data and unit costs were obtained from published, peer-reviewed literature and national databases respectively. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum to adjust future costs and benefits to present value. RESULTS: In a site size of 300, TriageHF Plus was predicted to prevent 384 (363-405) hospitalisations over 5 years. In total, TriageHF Plus saved £3989 (£1812-£5563) per person-lifetime versus usual care and was more effective and cost-saving in 99.4% of simulations. Results were robust to changes in key input parameters. Modelling showed that to avoid one hospitalisation, 1.7 people would need lifetime access to TriageHF Plus. CONCLUSION: The TriageHF Plus pathway is cost-effective for the remote monitoring of HF in patients with CIEDs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04177199.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahmed et al. (2025) studied Heart failure with a compatible cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) (n=758). TriageHF Plus clinical pathway vs. Usual care was evaluated on Cost saved per person-lifetime (£3989 saved, 95% CI 1812-5563). The TriageHF Plus remote monitoring pathway saved £3989 (£1812-£5563) per person-lifetime versus usual care, with 1.7 people needing lifetime access to avoid one hospitalization.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: