Heart rhythm · 2016
Economic analysis of remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices: Results of the Health Economics Evaluation Registry for Remote Follow-up (TARIFF) study.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Ricci Renato Pietro, Vicentini Alfredo, D'Onofrio Antonio, Sagone Antonio, Rovaris Giovanni, Padeletti Luigi, Morichelli Loredana, Fusco Antonio, De Vivo Stefano, Lombardi Leonida, Denaro Alessandra, Pollastrelli Annalisa, Colangelo Irene, Santini Massimo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices has been demonstrated to improve outpatient clinic workflow and patient management. However, few data are available on the socioeconomic impact of RM.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the costs and benefits of RM compared with standard care (SC).
METHODS: We used 12-month patient data from the Health Economics Evaluation Registry for Remote Follow-up (TARIFF) study (N = 209; RM: n = 102 (48.81%); SC: n = 107 (51.19%)). Cost comparison was made from 2 perspectives: the health care system (HCS) and patients. The use of health care resources was defined on the basis of hospital clinical folders. Out-of-pocket expenses were reported directly by patients.
RESULTS: HCS perspective: The overall mean annual cost per patient in the SC group (€1044.89 ± €1990.47) was significantly higher than in the RM group (€482.87 ± €2488.10) (P < .0001), with a reduction of 53.87% being achieved in the RM group. The primary driver of cost reduction was the cost of cardiovascular hospitalizations (SC: €`886.67 ± €1979.13 vs RM: €432.34 ± €2488.10; P = .0030). Patient and caregiver perspective: The annual cost incurred by patients was significantly higher in the SC group than in the RM group (SC: €169.49 ± €189.50 vs RM: €56.87 ± €80.22; P < .0001). Patients' quality-adjusted life-years were not significantly different between the groups. Provider perspective: The total number of inhospital device follow-up visits was reduced by 58.78% in the RM group.
CONCLUSION: RM of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is cost saving from the perspectives of the HCS, patients, and caregivers. Introducing appropriate reimbursements will make RM sustainable even for the provider, i.e. the hospitals which provide the service and encourage widespread adoption of RM.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the costs and benefits of RM compared with standard care (SC).
METHODS: We used 12-month patient data from the Health Economics Evaluation Registry for Remote Follow-up (TARIFF) study (N = 209; RM: n = 102 (48.81%); SC: n = 107 (51.19%)). Cost comparison was made from 2 perspectives: the health care system (HCS) and patients. The use of health care resources was defined on the basis of hospital clinical folders. Out-of-pocket expenses were reported directly by patients.
RESULTS: HCS perspective: The overall mean annual cost per patient in the SC group (€1044.89 ± €1990.47) was significantly higher than in the RM group (€482.87 ± €2488.10) (P < .0001), with a reduction of 53.87% being achieved in the RM group. The primary driver of cost reduction was the cost of cardiovascular hospitalizations (SC: €`886.67 ± €1979.13 vs RM: €432.34 ± €2488.10; P = .0030). Patient and caregiver perspective: The annual cost incurred by patients was significantly higher in the SC group than in the RM group (SC: €169.49 ± €189.50 vs RM: €56.87 ± €80.22; P < .0001). Patients' quality-adjusted life-years were not significantly different between the groups. Provider perspective: The total number of inhospital device follow-up visits was reduced by 58.78% in the RM group.
CONCLUSION: RM of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is cost saving from the perspectives of the HCS, patients, and caregivers. Introducing appropriate reimbursements will make RM sustainable even for the provider, i.e. the hospitals which provide the service and encourage widespread adoption of RM.