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 · 2025
Cost-effectiveness of an intraoperative antibacterial envelope in preventing cardiac implantable device-associated infections: a systematic review.
Систематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Mudigonda Sathvika, Hagarty Ethan, Lei Lucy, Rennert-May Elissa, Joza Jacqueline, Exner Derek V, Andrade Jason, Raj Satish R, Chew Derek S
Аннотация
AIMS: Intraoperative use of an antibacterial envelope during surgery for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) surgery reduces infection risk at increased procedural costs. The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize the published economic literature on the cost-effectiveness of the antibacterial envelope.
METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic review of the published literature was conducted to identify economic evaluations (i.e. cost-utility, cost-effectiveness, and cost-benefit studies) comparing the antibacterial envelope compared with standard of care in preventing post-operative CIED infection. Systematic review best practices were followed, and study quality was assessed. Of 142 unique citations, 7 studies met the inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis. All cost-effectiveness studies were conducted from the healthcare payer perspective of high-income countries. The base case analysis of most economic studies (5/7) reported a cost per quality-adjusted life year gained that exceeded country-specific societal thresholds for good value in healthcare. Cost-effectiveness was highly dependent on the baseline infection risk. That is, at current pricing, the antibacterial envelope may be cost-effective at base infection rates of greater than 3%, and cost-savings at infection rates that exceed 6%.
CONCLUSION: Routine use of an antibacterial envelope in patients undergoing CIED procedures (implantation or revision) is unlikely to be cost-effective except among those at high risk for post-operative infection. Individualized risk assessment may help guide efficient and value-based use of this technology.
METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic review of the published literature was conducted to identify economic evaluations (i.e. cost-utility, cost-effectiveness, and cost-benefit studies) comparing the antibacterial envelope compared with standard of care in preventing post-operative CIED infection. Systematic review best practices were followed, and study quality was assessed. Of 142 unique citations, 7 studies met the inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis. All cost-effectiveness studies were conducted from the healthcare payer perspective of high-income countries. The base case analysis of most economic studies (5/7) reported a cost per quality-adjusted life year gained that exceeded country-specific societal thresholds for good value in healthcare. Cost-effectiveness was highly dependent on the baseline infection risk. That is, at current pricing, the antibacterial envelope may be cost-effective at base infection rates of greater than 3%, and cost-savings at infection rates that exceed 6%.
CONCLUSION: Routine use of an antibacterial envelope in patients undergoing CIED procedures (implantation or revision) is unlikely to be cost-effective except among those at high risk for post-operative infection. Individualized risk assessment may help guide efficient and value-based use of this technology.