Key result
ILRs are cost-effective versus no further testing for unexplained syncope at ~£17,400 per QALY.
Why the study?
The cost-effectiveness of implantable loop recorders in people with transient loss of consciousness suspected to be arrhythmic or unexplained after specialist cardiovascular assessment was uncertain.
Are implantable loop recorders cost-effective compared to no further diagnostic testing in patients with unexplained or suspected arrhythmic transient loss of consciousness?
Are implantable loop recorders cost-effective compared to no further diagnostic testing in patients with unexplained or suspected arrhythmic transient loss of consciousness?
Effect estimate: £17,400 per QALY (unexplained) and £16,400 per QALY (suspected arrhythmic)
Implantable loop recorders are a cost-effective diagnostic strategy for patients with unexplained or suspected arrhythmic transient loss of consciousness, supporting NICE guideline recommendations.
Supports ILR consideration in unexplained syncope per NICE; leaves open need for randomized economic data.
AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of implantable loop recorders (ILRs) in people with transient loss of consciousness (TLoC), which, after initial assessment and specialist cardiovascular assessment, is either suspected to be arrhythmic in origin or remains unexplained. This analysis was conducted to inform clinical guideline recommendations made by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) on the management of TLoC. METHODS AND RESULTS: Decision analytic modelling was used to estimate the costs and benefits of using ILRs compared with a strategy of no further diagnostic testing. Diagnostic outcomes were estimated from a systematic review and used to populate a decision tree model. To capture the main consequences of diagnosis, the costs and benefits of treatment for several clinically significant arrhythmias were estimated within the model. We used a cost-utility approach, in which benefits are measured using quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and took a UK National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services perspective. The cost per QALY was £17,400 in patients with unexplained syncope and £16,400 in patients with suspected arrhythmic syncope. Sensitivity analysis found that the cost-effectiveness estimates are fairly robust despite the areas of uncertainty identified in the evidence and assumptions used to inform the model. CONCLUSIONS: Implantable loop recorder monitoring is likely to be a cost-effective strategy in people presenting to the UK NHS who are experiencing infrequent episodes of TLoC which either remain unexplained or are suspected to be arrhythmic after initial assessment and specialist cardiovascular assessment. Implantable loop recorder monitoring has been recommended by NICE for these populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Davis et al. (2011) studied Transient loss of consciousness (TLoC). Implantable loop recorders (ILRs) vs. No further diagnostic testing was evaluated on Cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) (£17,400 per QALY (unexplained) and £16,400 per QALY (suspected arrhythmic)). Implantable loop recorders are a cost-effective strategy compared to no further testing, with a cost per QALY of £17,400 in unexplained syncope and £16,400 in suspected arrhythmic syncope.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: