Heart rhythm · 2015
Wearable cardioverter-defibrillator for prevention of sudden cardiac death after infected implantable cardioverter-defibrillator removal: A cost-effectiveness evaluation.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Healy Christopher A, Carrillo Roger G
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Prevention of sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) after removal of an infected implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is a challenging clinical dilemma. The cost-effectiveness of the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) in this setting remains uncertain.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of the WCD with discharge home, discharge to a skilled nursing facility, or inpatient monitoring for the prevention of SCA after infected ICD removal.
METHODS: A decision model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of use of the WCD to several different strategies for patients who undergo ICD removal. One-way and 2-way sensitivity analyses were performed to account for uncertainties.
RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness of the WCD strategy was $20,300 per life-year (LY) or $26,436 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) compared to discharge home without a WCD. Discharge to a skilled nursing facility and in-hospital monitoring resulted in higher costs and worse clinical outcomes. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was as low as $15,392/QALY if the WCD successfully terminated 95% of SCA events and exceeded the $50,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold if the efficacy was <69%.The WCD strategy remained cost-effective, assuming 5.6% 2-month SCA risk, as long as the time to reimplantation was at least 2 weeks.
CONCLUSION: The WCD likely is cost-effective in protecting patients against SCA after infected ICD removal while waiting for ICD reimplantation compared to keeping patients in the hospital or discharging them home or to a skilled nursing facility.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of the WCD with discharge home, discharge to a skilled nursing facility, or inpatient monitoring for the prevention of SCA after infected ICD removal.
METHODS: A decision model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of use of the WCD to several different strategies for patients who undergo ICD removal. One-way and 2-way sensitivity analyses were performed to account for uncertainties.
RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness of the WCD strategy was $20,300 per life-year (LY) or $26,436 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) compared to discharge home without a WCD. Discharge to a skilled nursing facility and in-hospital monitoring resulted in higher costs and worse clinical outcomes. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was as low as $15,392/QALY if the WCD successfully terminated 95% of SCA events and exceeded the $50,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold if the efficacy was <69%.The WCD strategy remained cost-effective, assuming 5.6% 2-month SCA risk, as long as the time to reimplantation was at least 2 weeks.
CONCLUSION: The WCD likely is cost-effective in protecting patients against SCA after infected ICD removal while waiting for ICD reimplantation compared to keeping patients in the hospital or discharging them home or to a skilled nursing facility.