The Journal of surgical research · 2020
Early Versus Delayed Pacemaker for Heart Block After Valve Surgery: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Beller Jared P, Tyerman Zachary, Mehaffey J Hunter, Hawkins Robert B, Charles Eric J, Yarboro Leora T, Teman Nicholas R, Wancheck Tanya, Ailawadi Gorav, Mehta Nishaki K
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: A significant percentage of patients who acutely develop high-grade atrioventricular block after valve surgery will ultimately recover, yet the ability to predict recovery is limited. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of two different management strategies for the timing of permanent pacemaker implantation for new heart block after valve surgery.
METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was developed using costs and probabilities of short- and long-term complications of pacemaker placement, short-term atrioventricular node recovery, intensive care unit stays, and long-term follow-up. We aggregated the total expected cost and utility of each option over a 20-y period. Quality-adjusted survival with a pacemaker was estimated from the literature and institutional patient-reported outcomes. Primary decision analysis was based on an expected recovery rate of 36.7% at 12 d with timing of pacemaker implantation: early placement (5 d) versus watchful waiting for 12 d.
RESULTS: A strategy of watchful waiting was more costly ($171,798 ± $45,695 versus $165,436 ± $52,923; P < 0.0001) but had a higher utility (9.05 ± 1.36 versus 8.55 ± 1.33 quality-adjusted life years; P < 0.0001) than an early pacemaker implantation strategy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of watchful waiting was $12,724 per quality-adjusted life year. The results are sensitive to differences in quality-adjusted survival and rates of recovery of atrioventricular node function.
CONCLUSIONS: Watchful waiting for pacemaker insertion is a cost-effective management strategy compared with early placement for acute atrioventricular block after valve surgery. Although this is cost-effective from a population perspective, clinical risk scores predicting recovery will aid in personalized decision-making.
METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was developed using costs and probabilities of short- and long-term complications of pacemaker placement, short-term atrioventricular node recovery, intensive care unit stays, and long-term follow-up. We aggregated the total expected cost and utility of each option over a 20-y period. Quality-adjusted survival with a pacemaker was estimated from the literature and institutional patient-reported outcomes. Primary decision analysis was based on an expected recovery rate of 36.7% at 12 d with timing of pacemaker implantation: early placement (5 d) versus watchful waiting for 12 d.
RESULTS: A strategy of watchful waiting was more costly ($171,798 ± $45,695 versus $165,436 ± $52,923; P < 0.0001) but had a higher utility (9.05 ± 1.36 versus 8.55 ± 1.33 quality-adjusted life years; P < 0.0001) than an early pacemaker implantation strategy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of watchful waiting was $12,724 per quality-adjusted life year. The results are sensitive to differences in quality-adjusted survival and rates of recovery of atrioventricular node function.
CONCLUSIONS: Watchful waiting for pacemaker insertion is a cost-effective management strategy compared with early placement for acute atrioventricular block after valve surgery. Although this is cost-effective from a population perspective, clinical risk scores predicting recovery will aid in personalized decision-making.