Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2009
Lifetime cost-effectiveness of prophylactic implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator in patients with reduced left ventricular systolic function: results of Markov modelling in a European population.
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.
Cowie Martin R, Marshall Deborah, Drummond Michael, Ferko Nicole, Maschio Michael, Ekman Matthias, de Roy Luc, Heidbuchel Hein, Verboven Yves, Braunschweig Frieder, Linde Cecilia, Boriani Giuseppe
Аннотация
AIMS: Current European guidelines recommend prophylactic implantation of cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) who are not in NYHA class IV and have reasonable life expectancy. Cost and benefit implications of this recommendation have not been reported from a European perspective.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Markov modelling estimated lifetime costs and effects [life years (LY) and quality-adjusted LY (QALY) gained] of prophylactic ICD implantation vs. conventional treatment, among patients with a reduced LVEF. Efficacy was estimated from a meta-analysis of mortality rates in the six primary prevention trials with inclusion criteria matching ACC/AHA/ESC Class I or IIa recommendations. Direct medical costs were estimated using Belgian national references. Costs and effects were discounted at 3 and 1.5% per annum, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity and scenario analyses estimated the uncertainty around the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. An ICD implantation increased the lifetime direct costs by euro 46,413. Estimated mean LY/QALY gained were 1.88/1.57, respectively. Probabilistic analysis estimated mean lifetime cost per QALY gained as euro 31,717 (95% CI: euro 19,760-euro 61,316). Cost-effectiveness was influenced most by ICD efficacy, time to replacement, utility, and patient age at implantation.
CONCLUSION: In a European healthcare setting, prophylactic ICD implantation may be cost-effective if current guidelines for patients with a reduced LVEF are followed.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Markov modelling estimated lifetime costs and effects [life years (LY) and quality-adjusted LY (QALY) gained] of prophylactic ICD implantation vs. conventional treatment, among patients with a reduced LVEF. Efficacy was estimated from a meta-analysis of mortality rates in the six primary prevention trials with inclusion criteria matching ACC/AHA/ESC Class I or IIa recommendations. Direct medical costs were estimated using Belgian national references. Costs and effects were discounted at 3 and 1.5% per annum, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity and scenario analyses estimated the uncertainty around the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. An ICD implantation increased the lifetime direct costs by euro 46,413. Estimated mean LY/QALY gained were 1.88/1.57, respectively. Probabilistic analysis estimated mean lifetime cost per QALY gained as euro 31,717 (95% CI: euro 19,760-euro 61,316). Cost-effectiveness was influenced most by ICD efficacy, time to replacement, utility, and patient age at implantation.
CONCLUSION: In a European healthcare setting, prophylactic ICD implantation may be cost-effective if current guidelines for patients with a reduced LVEF are followed.