Automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: is early implantation cost-effective?

Comparison of the long-term efficacy of implantable defibrillators and sotalol for documented spontaneous sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias secondary to coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

The relative efficacy of antitachycardia pacing implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ATPICD) and sotalol in the treatment of ventricular tachyarrhythmias is controversial.

AIM

To compare the mortality in patients treated with ATPICD and sotalol for documented spontaneous sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias occurring late after previous myocardial infarction.

METHODS

In this non-randomised retrospective study of 139 consecutive patients all patients had inducible ventricular tachycardia at baseline electrophysiological studies. Before the availability of ATPICD, 22 patients were treated with sotalol as part of a randomised study comparing the efficacy of sotalol to amiodarone. After ATPICD became available sotalol was used in 49 patients in whom intravenous testing predicted sotalol to be effective and ATPICD were implanted in 68 patients in whom sotalol was predicted to be ineffective at electrophysiological testing. Thus, 68 patients were treated with an ATPICD and 71 with sotalol.

RESULTS

The two groups were well-matched for age, type of presenting arrhythmia, severity of coronary artery disease and ventricular function. At 36 months Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality from ventricular tachyarrhythmia were 0% with ATPICD and 15% with sotalol (p=0.03). Kaplan-Meier estimates of total mortality at 36 months were 12% with ATPICD and 25% with sotalol (p=0.09). Multivariate analysis showed hazard ratio of 7.9 (p=0.06) for death from ventricular tachyarrhythmia in patients treated with sotalol compared to ATPICD.

CONCLUSIONS

While no difference in total mortality was demonstrated, treatment with ATPICD is probably superior to sotalol for preventing deaths due to ventricular tachyarrhythmia.

The cost-effectiveness of automatic implantable cardiac defibrillators: results from MADIT. Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial

BACKGROUND

The recently reported Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT) showed improved survival in selected asymptomatic patients with coronary disease and nonsustained ventricular tachycardia. The economic consequences of defibrillator management in this patient population are unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients were followed up to quantify their use of healthcare services, including hospitalizations, physician visits, medications, laboratory tests, and procedures, during the trial. The costs of these services, including the costs of the defibrillator, were determined in patients randomized to defibrillator and nondefibrillator therapy. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated by relating these costs to the increased survival associated with the use of the defibrillator. The average survival for the defibrillator group over a 4-year period was 3.66 years compared with 2.80 years for conventionally treated patients. Accumulated net costs were $97,560 for the defibrillator group compared with $75,980 for individuals treated with medications alone. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $27,000 per life-year saved compares favorably with other cardiac interventions. Sensitivity analyses showed that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio would be reduced to approximately $23,000 per life-year saved if transvenous defibrillators were used instead of the older devices, which required thoracic surgery for implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

An implanted cardiac defibrillator is cost-effective in selected individuals at high risk for ventricular arrhythmias.

Experience with unipolar pectoral defibrillation

With simple, single lead unipolar pectoral defibrillators, ICD technology has reached a level of ease and safety comparable to pacemaker implantation. It will be difficult to further decrease the morbidity associated with ICD implantation; just as it will be difficult to improve upon current device treatment of sudden cardiac death. Even as further incremental improvements in devices and leads will undoubtedly occur, at this point in ICD evolution, it is investigating the expanded use of this therapy as a prevention tool that is likely to have the largest overall impact on cardiac arrest survival.

Unipolar pectoral defibrillation systems

Over the past 15 years, the implantation of automatic defibrillations has evolved from an obscure, impractical, and often morbid procedure to nearly a routine therapy. Initial large abdominally implanted generators with multiple epicardial leads have given way to much smaller, pectorally implanted systems utilizing only a single lead. These systems are better accepted by physicians and patients and rival recent-generation pacemakers in their implantation simplicity. Outcomes with single lead defibrillator implantation have been excellent. They are 99% effective at eliminating sudden death in large cohorts of patients, with overall survival of 94.4% at 18 months. Previously significant perioperative complications and mortality associated with epicardial systems have been virtually eliminated. Transvenous single lead systems now provide defibrillation efficacy at a level that makes epicardial leads unnecessary in most patients. Although inappropriate shocks are not a morbid complication, they still occur in approximately 15%-30% of patients. This is an area for improvement in defibrillator therapy, which, though invisible in total mortality statistics, is significant in terms of patient comfort and acceptance. Incremental improvements in pulse generator design and defibrillator lead technology are being made. Perhaps the most interesting new development will be the dual chamber device, incorporating and atrial electrode for sensing, pacing, and perhaps, atrial defibrillation. Such improvements will continue to make device therapy of all arrhythmias more versatile and improve patient comfort both in terms of device size and inappropriate shocks. It is unlikely, however, that further technological advances can further diminish the already small complication rate or improve the already excellent efficacy of current single lead systems. Defibrillator technology has already reached a maturity where technological improvements are less significant than efforts to better define the patient population who will benefit from the therapy.

Long-term cost-effectiveness of alternative management strategies for patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Electrophysiologic Study versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring (ESVEM) Investigators

BACKGROUND

Serial antiarrhythmic drug testing guided by Holter monitoring and electrophysiologic study had similar clinical outcomes in the Electrophysiologic Study versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring (ESVEM) trial, while patients treated with sotalol had improved outcomes. The purpose of this study was to compare long-term cost-effectiveness of these management alternatives.

METHODS

Patients in the ESVEM trial were linked to computerized files of either the Health Care Finance Administration or the Department of Veterans Affairs. Total hospital costs and survival time over five year follow-up were measured using actuarial methods, and cost-effectiveness was calculated.

RESULTS

Patients randomized to therapy guided by electrophysiologic study had more hospital admissions, higher costs, and a cost-effectiveness ratio of $162,500 per life year added compared with therapy guided by Holter monitoring. Patients randomized to sotalol had fewer hospitalizations, lower costs, and better survival than patients randomized to other drugs, and sotalol was a dominant strategy in the cost-effectiveness analysis. Patients for whom an effective drug was found had fewer hospital admissions, lower costs, and longer survival. These findings were robust in sensitivity analyses and in bootstrap replications.

CONCLUSIONS

Serial drug testing guided by electrophysiologic study had an unfavorable cost-effectiveness ratio relative to Holter monitoring, while sotalol was cost-effective relative to other antiarrhythmic drugs.

Evaluation and Management of Sudden Death Survivors

Only 20% of patients survive a cardiac arrest. Up to 80% of patients have a cardiac arrest secondary to a ventricular tachyarrhythmia. In the adult population, over 70% of the above patients have obstructive coronary artery disease; thus, coronary arteriography should be performed in all survivors of cardiac arrest. Once reversible causes have been treated, antiarrhythmic therapy is usually guided by Holter monitoring, electrophysiologic testing or both. Due to high recurrence rates on antiarrhythmic drugs, many patients are now treated with implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Although these devices appear to improve sudden death survival, long-term overall survival may not be superior to “best drug therapy.” This hypothesis is currently being tested in two prospective randomized, multicenter trials.

Cost savings with nonthoracotomy implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

We analyzed hospital and physician charges for 99 consecutive patients who underwent implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation at our institution. Eighteen patients received an epicardial lead system and 81 were scheduled to receive a nonthoracotomy lead system, the generator being implanted either abdominally (n = 62) or pectorally (n = 19). The epicardial group had a significantly longer convalescent stay (11.6 +/- 2.5 days; mean +/- SEM) than the abdominal nonthoracotomy group, analyzed by intention to treat (4.6 +/- 0.5 days) or by treatment received (3.8 +/- 0.2 days; p <0.0001). Postoperative stay for the pectoral group was shorter still (2.9 +/- 0.4 days; p <0.033). Total charges for the epicardial group were $99,081 +/- $25,094, significantly higher than those for any of the nonthoracotomy groups (p <0.017). Total charges for the pectoral group were $44,128 +/- $2,465, significantly less than those for the abdominal nonthoracotomy group, analyzed by intention to treat ($59,961 +/- $1,369; p <0.05) or by treatment received ($56,679 +/- $635; p <0.05). Cost reductions in the nonthoracotomy groups were primarily due to decreased in-hospital convalescence period, lower surgeon and anesthesiologist fees, and lower procedure-day hospital charges in the pectoral group. The use of ICDs with nonthoracotomy leads can result in significantly shorter in-hospital convalescence and a reduction in total implant-related charges of 40% to 55%. The use of pectorally implanted ICDs results in further reduction in hospital stay and further cost reduction of 22% to 26%. The trend toward shorter convalescent stay without postimplant testing is likely to reduce further the overall costs of ICD implantation.

Hospital readmission in patients treated with tiered-therapy implantable defibrillators

BACKGROUND

We wished to determine the incidence, reasons, costs, and predictors of cardiac-related hospital readmission in patients with tiered-therapy implantable defibrillators. Hospital readmission in patients with defibrillators reduces their quality of life and increases the cost associated with such therapy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We retrospectively studied 65 consecutive local patients (median age, 67 years; median ejection fraction, 0.34) who underwent tiered-therapy defibrillator implantation at this institution. Patients were followed for a median of 19 months (interquartile range, 10 to 27 months). The cause, duration, costs, and predictors of cardiac-related rehospitalizations were analyzed. There were 76 cardiac admissions for 34 patients. The rate of cardiac-related hospital readmission was 0.72 per patient-year of follow-up. Arrhythmia-related admissions accounted for 43 of such admissions in 24 patients. Actuarial freedom from cardiac-related admissions was 0.57 and 0.40 at 1 and 2 years, respectively. The median length of stay for hospital readmissions was 5 days (interquartile range, 3 to 8 days). The median cost per admission was $5842 (interquartile range, $3549 to $12 170). The time to first readmission and the total rehospitalization time per year of follow-up were associated with a poor preimplant New York Heart Association functional class. Readmission for cardiac arrhythmias was not predicted by clinical parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Rehospitalization for cardiac reasons is common in patients receiving implantable defibrillators and is responsible for substantial resource consumption. The need for readmission for arrhythmia-related reasons cannot be predicted by clinical parameters at the time of device implantation.

Can implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy reduce healthcare costs?

This article presents a comparison of the costs and the cost effectiveness of defibrillator implantation in a hypothetical scenario for the years 1996-2000, with recently reported actual data from the Dutch prospective study over the years 1989-1993. Recently, technological advances in pulse generator and leads have revolutionized implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy. Major advances include (1) transvenous single lead positioning and (2) tremendously reduced size, combined with prolonged longevity of the pulse generator. Both have simplified implantation technique and provided for superior effectiveness and lower costs. This suggests that a more favorable cost-effectiveness is to be expected. The study group reported here consisted of patients successfully resuscitated after cardiac arrest due to malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias in the chronic stage of myocardial infarction. During a mean follow-up of 27 months, starting on the day of therapeutic decision making, total costs and the cost-effectiveness ratio were estimated. Actual data from the prospective study in 1989-1993 are compared with a hypothetical scenario for 1996-2000. Mortality and costs for hospitalization per day, per procedure, and per device are taken from the prospective study and equalized for both scenarios. Transthoracic lead positioning and abdominal implantation of a Ventak P (CPI) defibrillator with +/- 3 years longevity were characteristic of the recently completed prospective study. The hypothetical future scenario uses the Ventak Mini-2 with assumed 5 years longevity, implanted pectorally and connected to a single transvenous lead. Implantation will be carried out in the catheterization laboratory and as first-choice treatment. Due to prolonged longevity of the device and shorter hospitalization, a cost reduction of US $11,530 per patient is expected. Total costs per patient in the 1989-1993 prospective study in the (1) conventional arm (drugs first choice), (2) early ICD arm (ICD first choice), and (3) early ICD arm in the 1996-2000 study (ICD first choice) are $63,032, $56,067, and $44,537, respectively. The corresponding cost-effectiveness ratios are $87, $64, and $51 per day alive, respectively. Thus, it appears that modem ICD technology will be associated with an increasing reduction in healthcare costs, at least in selected patients. This reduction is associated with a more favorable cost-effectiveness ratio.

Comparison of three cardioverter defibrillator implantation techniques: initial results with transvenous pectoral implantation

A total of 121 patients underwent epicardial (n = 32), transvenous abdominal (n = 30), and transvenous pectoral (n = 59) ICD implants. Perioperative complications were defined as those occurring within 30 days after surgery. Hospital costs were calculated with $750 per day as a fixed charge. Duration of surgery was the time between the first skin incision and the last skin suture. Severe perioperative complications that were life-threatening or required surgical intervention occurred in the epicardial (6%) and transvenous (10%) abdominal groups, but not in the pectoral group. Perioperative mortality occurred only in the epicardial abdominal group, predominantly in patients with concomitant surgery (18%), and in 5% of patients without concomitant surgery. The duration of surgery was significantly shorter for transvenous pectoral implantation (58 +/- 15 min, P < 0.05) compared to transvenous abdominal implantation (115 +/- 38 min). Epicardial abdominal ICD implantation had the longest procedure time (154 +/- 31 min). The postimplant hospital length of stay was significantly shorter for pectoral implantation (5 +/- 3 days, P < 0.05) compared to transvenous (13 +/- 5) and epicardial (19 +/- 5) abdominal implantation. Total hospitalization costs significantly decreased in the pectoral implantation group ($4,068 +/- $2,099 for the pectoral group vs $14,887 +/- $4,415 and $9,975 +/- $3,657 for the epicardial and the transvenous abdominal group, respectively, P < 0.05). These initial results demonstrate the advantage of transvenous pectoral ICD implantation in terms of perioperative complications, procedure time, hospital length of stay, and hospitalization costs.

Implanted cardioverter-defibrillators are preferable to drugs as primary therapy in sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias

The choice of initial therapy for patients with malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias is examined based on clinical efficacy, patient safety, and cost. Antiarrhythmic drug therapy can be administered using a guided or empiric approach. Guided type-1 antiarrhythmic drug therapy has been associated with high arrhythmia recurrence rates (> 40% at 1 year) and moderate sudden death rates (10% at 1 year). Sotalol is associated with lower arrhythmia recurrence rates (20% at 1 year) that increase to 50% at 4 years. Beta-blocking agents have a limited role as stand-alone therapy in this condition. Empiric amiodarone therapy has sudden death-free survival rates of 82% at 2 years but has significantly poorer results in patients with ejection fractions < or = 40%. In contrast, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy has reported sudden death recurrence rates of 1% to 2% per year, with a cumulative index of 10% at 5 years. Total survival rate of ICD recipients ranges from 85% to 92% at 2 years. In patients with good left ventricular function, it approaches 90% at 5 years, whereas it is between 50% to 60% in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction. Data from device memory indicate an absolute reduction in mortality rates with ICD intervention. Comparison of drug and device therapy has been performed in retrospective and prospective studies. Improved survival with device therapy is noted, particularly in patients with ejection fractions < or = 35% to 40% in retrospective studies. The results of two small prospective randomized trials also show significant survival advantage as compared with those for type-1C drugs and a mixed group of antiarrhythmic drugs. An initial strategy of ICD therapy was shown to be superior in the Netherlands Cooperative Study. The 30-day perioperative mortality rate of ICD therapy of 0.8% contrasts favorably with a 13% mortality rate in the ESVEM trial with antiarrhythmic drugs and a 3.5% mortality rate in the CASCADE study. Economic analyses show that drug therapy and device therapy are both within the range of other current cardiovascular therapies. An improving economic profile for device therapy has been observed with nonthoracotomy and pectoral implantation and direct use of ICD therapy because primary therapy shortens hospital stay and reduces costs. Based on available data, ICD therapy is preferable as initial therapy in patients with malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias.

Cost-effectiveness of implantable defibrillator as first-choice therapy versus electrophysiologically guided, tiered strategy in postinfarct sudden death survivors. A randomized study

BACKGROUND

Rising costs of health care, partly as a result of costly therapeutic innovations, are of concern to both the medical profession and healthcare authorities. The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is still not remunerated by Dutch healthcare insurers. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of early implantation of the ICD in postinfarct sudden death survivors.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Sixty consecutive postinfarct survivors of cardiac arrest caused by ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation were randomly assigned either ICD as first choice (n = 29) or a tiered therapy starting with antiarrhythmic drugs and guided by electrophysiological (EP) testing (n = 31). Median follow-up was 729 days (range, 3 to 1675 days). Fifteen patients died, 4 in the early ICD group and 11 in the EP-guided strategy group (P = .07). For quantitative assessment, the cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated for both groups and expressed as median total costs per patient per day alive. Because effectiveness aspects other than mortality are not incorporated in this ratio, other factors related to quality of life were used as qualitative measures of cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness ratios were $63 and $94 for the early ICD and EP-guided strategy groups, respectively, per patient per day alive. This amounts to a net cost-effectiveness of $11,315 per patient per year alive saved by early ICD implantation. Costs in the early ICD group were higher only during the first 3 months of follow-up, but as a result of the high proportion of therapy changes, including arrhythmia surgery and late ICD implantation, costs in the EP-guided strategy group became higher after that. Patients discharged with antiarrhythmic drugs as sole therapy had the lowest total costs. This subset, however, showed extremely high mortality, resulting in a poor cost-effectiveness ratio ($196 per day). Invasive therapies and hospitalization were the major contributors to costs. If quality-of-life measures are taken into account, the cost-effectiveness of early ICD implantation was even more favorable. Recurrent cardiac arrest and cardiac transplantation occurred in the EP-guided strategy group only, whereas exercise tolerance, total hospitalization duration, number of invasive procedures, and antiarrhythmic therapy changes were significantly in favor of early ICD implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of cost-effectiveness, early ICD implantation is superior to the EP-guided therapeutic strategy in postinfarct sudden death survivors.

The clinical-economic trial: promise, problems, and challenges

The clinical-economic trial is a study design that is appearing with greater frequency in medical and public health literature. Some experienced investigators view these trials with skepticism; to policy makers they represent a promising step in the control of rising health care costs. The success of clinical-economic trials in meeting the important goal of more rational and efficient use of health care resources will depend on the strengths and limitations of the research method. As part of a report to the Office of Technology Assessment of the U.S. Congress on new health care assessment techniques, we describe the reasons why economic data collection and analysis are being considered in clinical trials, identify and discuss various designs and methods for gathering economic trial data, and evaluate the strengths and limitations of different methods for providing sound data for decision making on appropriate use of health care interventions. Because of the potential significance and increasing visibility of such research, experts in research methods should give more attention to methodological research for clinical-economic trials. Future efforts should be directed at comparing different techniques for collecting data, examining the incremental value of precision in economic measurements and ensuring appropriate interpretation of data from clinical-economic trials.

Evaluating and improving the cost-effectiveness of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is an expensive, widely used device for severe ventricular arrhythmias. Marginal cost-effectiveness analysis is a technique to examine the incremental cost of treatment strategy in relation to its effectiveness. In this study, we used this technique to analyze the cost-effectiveness of the ICD compared with that of electrophysiology (EP)-guided drug therapy and examined ways in which it may be improved. We analyzed Michigan Medicare discharge abstracts (1989 to 1992) and local physician visit, test, and ICD charges. Effectiveness was from 218 previously described patients with ICDs in whom the time of first event (first appropriate shock or death) was determined and presumed to represent "control" (EP-guided drug therapy) mortality. We assumed a 4-year life cycle for the ICD generator and 3.4% operative mortality and used a 5% discount to prevent value. Data were analyzed in a 1-month cycle Markov decision model over a 6-year horizon, and results were updated to 1993 dollars. ICD effectiveness was an increase in discounted mean life expectancy of 1.72 years. Cost-effectiveness was $31,100/year of life saved (YLS). Results were minimally or modestly sensitive to variations in preoperative mortality; resource use; consideration only of patients with ICDs who were receiving any antiarrhythmic drug or specifically amiodarone; and to a decrease in the percentage of first shocks that would equal death without the ICD until the assumed percentage decreased to < 38%. At ejection fraction of < 0.25 and > or = 0.25, cost-effectiveness was $44,000/YLS and $27,200/YLS, respectively, and without preimplant EP study was $18,100/ YLS.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Transvenous cardioverter defibrillators: cost implications of a less invasive approach

To assess the economic impact of a transvenous lead system for an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), we evaluated the hospital charges for two groups of patients: group I patients (n = 23) underwent implantation of an ICD generator with an epicardial lead system via a thoracotomy and group II patients (n = 25) underwent implantation of the same generator using transvenous leads. There was no difference in demographics between the two groups. There was a 15% decrease in total charges for the transvenous group compared to the thoracotomy group ($54,142 vs $63,359, P < 0.05). Evaluation of the component charges revealed that the decline could be attributed to a reduction in implant ($27,328 vs $29,285, P < 0.02) and convalescent charges ($7,703 vs $15,179, P < 0.01) for the transvenous group. There was a corresponding decrease in length of stay for the transvenous group (22 vs 29 days, P < 0.05) largely secondary to a 38% reduction in convalescent length of stay (8 vs 13 days, P < 0.05). We conclude that the use of transvenous lead systems for the ICD results in a significant reduction in hospital charges as well as hospital length of stay.

Cost-effectiveness analysis in heart disease, Part III: Ischemia, congestive heart failure, and arrhythmias

Cost-effectiveness analyses were reviewed in the following diagnostic and treatment categories: acute myocardial infarction (MI) and diagnostic strategies for coronary artery disease (CAD), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA), congestive heart failure (CHF), and arrhythmias. In the case of acute MI, coronary care units, as presently used, are rather expensive but could be made much more efficient with more effective triage and resource utilization; reperfusion via thrombolysis is cost-effective, as are beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors post-MI in appropriate patients. Cost-effectiveness of CAD screening tests depends strongly on the prevalence of disease in the population studied. Cost-effectiveness of CABG surgery depends on targeting; eg, it is highly effective for such conditions as left-main and three-vessel disease but not for lesser disease. PTCA appears to be cost-effective in situations where there is clinical consensus for its use, eg, severe ischemia and one-vessel disease, but requires further analysis based on randomized data; coronary stents also appear to be cost-effective. In preliminary analysis, ACE inhibition for CHF dominates, ie, saves both money and lives. Cardiac transplant appears to be cost-effective but requires further study. For arrhythmias, implantable cardioverter defibrillators are cost-effective, especially the transvenous device, in life-threatening situations; radiofrequency ablation is also cost-effective in patients with Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome apart from asymptomatic individuals; and pacemakers have not been analyzed except in the case of biofascicular block, where results were variable depending on the situation and preceding tests.

Cost and length of hospital stay: comparisons between nonthoracotomy and epicardial techniques in patients receiving implantable cardioverter defibrillators

Twenty-five patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) implanted intrathoracically (group I) were compared with 25 patients who underwent implant using the nonthoracotomy approach (group II). All systems were implanted by the same medical team, in the same high volume implanting center. Indications for implantation were comparable in both groups. Patient characteristics were not statistically different with the exception of age (66-group I vs 71-group II; P < 0.05). Although left ventricular ejection fractions appeared to differ (32% vs 37%, respectively), this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.06). ICD models used in group I were: Ventritex Cadence (16), Telectronics Guardian 4211 (2), Medtronic PCD (7); in group II they were: Ventritex Cadence (15), Guardian 4211 (2), and CPI 1600 (1). Total length of hospital stay was 16 +/- 6 days for group I versus 12 +/- 5 for group II (P < 0.05). Number of postoperative days in an intensive care unit was 3.2 +/- 2.8 for group I versus 0.5 +/- 0.6 for group II (P < 0.0001). Postoperative length of stay was 8.2 +/- 3.1 for group I versus 5.7 +/- 4.4 for group II (P < 0.001). Mean total hospital charges for the entire length of stay were $72,918 +/- $26,770 in group I versus $55,031 +/- $42,870 in group II, representing a mean reduction of 21% in global costs for group II patients. These data confirm that nonthoracotomy ICD implantation in an experienced center is associated with significantly shorter hospital stays, a virtual elimination of the need for postoperative intensive care, and globally lower total hospital costs. In addition, the presence of a statistically older population in group II does not negate these beneficial effects.

Nonthoracotomy- versus thoracotomy-implantable defibrillators. Intention-to-treat comparison of clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Nonthoracotomy-implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD) systems may represent a significant advance in the treatment of patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias, but their merits relative to those of the well-established thoracotomy systems remain largely unknown. The objective of this study was to compare the short- and long-term clinical outcomes after attempted ICD implantation via a nonthoracotomy versus thoracotomy approach in similar groups of patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between September 1990 and December 1992, 212 consecutive patients underwent attempted ICD system implantation without concomitant cardiac surgery at a single institution. Approach selection was not randomized but rather was based primarily on hardware availability. Primary comparisons of short- and long-term outcome were performed according to the "intention-to-treat" principle. Implantation was attempted via a nonthoracotomy approach in 120 patients (57%) and via a thoracotomy approach in 92 patients (43%). Prior cardiac surgery was more prevalent in the nonthoracotomy patients; otherwise, groups did not differ significantly in terms of prognostically relevant clinical characteristics. Nonthoracotomy implantation was successful in 101 patients (84%). After crossover to thoracotomy implantation (14 patients), the eventual success rate for ICD system implantation was 96% in the nonthoracotomy group. Thoracotomy implantation was successful in 89 patients (97%). Operative mortality was 3.3% in the nonthoracotomy and 4.3% in the thoracotomy groups (P = .73). Nonthoracotomy group patients were less likely to experience postoperative congestive heart failure (6% versus 16%; P = .02) or supraventricular arrhythmia (6% versus 18%; P = .004) and had significantly shorter postoperative intensive care and total hospitalization. Total hospital costs were significantly lower in the nonthoracotomy group ($32,205 versus $37,265; P = .001). After a follow-up of 16 +/- 9 months, there were 17 deaths in the nonthoracotomy group (none sudden) and 12 deaths in the thoracotomy group (1 sudden). One- and 2-year Kaplan-Meier survival probabilities were .87 (95% CI, .78 to .91) and .80 (95% CI, .68 to .88) in the nonthoracotomy group and .90 (95% CI, .82 to .95) and .87 (95% CI, .77 to .93) in the thoracotomy group (P = .56; log-rank test).

CONCLUSIONS

Nonthoracotomy ICD implantation is associated with reduced surgical morbidity, postoperative hospital care requirement, and hospital costs and has similar efficacy in preventing sudden death relative to the thoracotomy approach. From these nonrandomized data, it appears that a nonthoracotomy approach should be considered preferable in most patients requiring ICD therapy.

The economic impact of transvenous defibrillation lead systems

The purpose of this study was to compare implant charges and convalescence for transvenous and epicardial defibrillation systems. Hospital stay, intensive care utilization, professional fees, and hospital bills were compared in 44 patients who underwent implantation of a cardiac defibrillator between September 1991 and May 1993. Twenty-five consecutive patients received an epicardial lead system, while 19 consecutive patients underwent implantation of the entire transvenous defibrillation system in the electrophysiology laboratory. There were no significant differences between the two groups in mean age or left ventricular ejection fraction. There was a significant reduction in postoperative hospital convalescence from 7.2 +/- 2.0 days with epicardial systems to 3.1 +/- 1.5 days with transvenous systems (P < 0.001). Postoperative intensive care unit stay was significantly reduced with transvenous systems compared with epicardial systems (0.1 +/- 0.2 vs 1.5 +/- 0.9 days; P < 0.001). Hospital charges were also significantly reduced with the transvenous lead system implants. Mean implant charges were lower with transvenous systems: $32,090 +/- $2,620 vs $38,307 +/- $2,701 (P < 0.001); convalescence charges were lower: $5,861 +/- $5,010 $12,447 +/- $4,969 (P < 0.001); the total hospital bill was also significantly lower with transvenous systems: $53,459 +/- $12,588 vs $71,981 +/- $16,172 (P < 0.001). Professional fees for implantation ($4,131 +/- $1,724 vs $6,100 +/- 0, P < 0.001), convalescence care ($1,258 +/- $960 vs $2,846 +/- $1,770; P < 0.001), and total professional fees ($12,925 +/- $4,772 vs $15,731 +/- $4,055, P < 0.05) were lower in the transvenous defibrillation group.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Clinical experience with the implantable cardioverter defibrillator

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator has played an increasingly greater role in the management of episodes of sudden cardiac-related death related to ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. This study reviews the cases of 142 patients who underwent insertion of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator, 104 who received a device alone (group I) and 38 who underwent insertion of the device in combination with other cardiac surgical procedures (group II). The overall operative mortality was 3.5% and this did not differ between the two groups. The complication rate was higher for group II than for group I patients, and consisted primarily of an increased incidence of atrial arrhythmias (53% versus 13%; p < 0.001). Late complications included three device infections requiring removal of the defibrillator. The late mortality did not differ between the two groups and was primarily related to congestive heart failure. Sudden cardiac-related death was an uncommon late event, with an actuarial freedom from sudden cardiac-related death of 98%, 97%, and 87% at 1, 2, and 5 years, respectively. The morbidity and mortality rate are low in association with the insertion of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator, even when this is combined with other cardiac surgical procedures. Its insertion is also associated with a low subsequent rate of sudden cardiac-related death.

The impact of implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy on health care systems

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are now widely used for the secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death and are being offered as a primary preventive therapy. This technology has potential for significant fiscal impact on health care budgets. Technologic innovation will result in more complex devices that are more effective and better accepted by patients and physicians. The clinical impact of these devices will be predicated, in part, by absolute survival benefits but also by their relative advantages over alternative therapies in terms of survival, safety, morbidity, quality of life, and cost. The impact on public health will depend on the effectiveness of screening methods for identification of populations likely to benefit from primary prevention. Risk stratification algorithms are now being tested in several ongoing clinical trials. Dilution of benefit by competing illnesses may occur to different extents in individual patient populations. The economic impact is predicated on the future cost of ICD systems, limitation of hospitalization costs associated with this therapy, and accurate prospective stratification in primary prevention populations. Cost efficacy analyses and quality of life assessment in ongoing and future clinical trials are essential to the development of this therapy and its diffusion into different health care systems. Achievement of clinical benefits, functional independence, and a return to gainful employment by patients will be important determinants of the support lent by health care systems to the dissemination of this therapy.

Consistent subcutaneous prepectoral implantation of a new implantable cardioverter defibrillator

OBJECTIVE

To describe the use of a new implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) that can be placed in the prepectoral region rather than implanted in the abdominal wall.

DESIGN

We report the experience of placement of this new ICD in the prepectoral region in 13 patients from Sept. 28, 1993, through Jan. 10, 1994, at the Mayo Clinic.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Thirteen consecutive patients offered this new ICD underwent placement of transvenous defibrillation leads, and the pulse generator was placed in a pocket formed in the subcutaneous, prepectoral space. Testing ensured a defibrillation threshold of 24 J or less.

RESULTS

In all 13 patients, the pulse generator could be placed in the subcutaneous, prepectoral space. In all except one patient, acceptable defibrillation thresholds were achieved by using lead systems placed totally transvenously. Only one patient required placement of a subcutaneous patch. All but two patients were dismissed from the hospital within 3 days after the ICD implantation.

CONCLUSION

Consistent subcutaneous, prepectoral placement of this new ICD pulse generator is possible. Because the entire procedure can be performed in the pacemaker implantation room, the potential exists for decreasing the duration of the hospitalization and associated costs.

Rehospitalization in surviving patients of out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation (the CASCADE Study). Cardiac Arrest in Seattle: Conventional Amiodarone Drug Evaluation

Surviving patients of out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation (VF) often need rehospitalization after initial hospital discharge, but little is known regarding the frequency of or reasons for rehospitalization. Rehospitalization was examined in 224 patients enrolled in the Cardiac Arrest in Seattle: Conventional Amiodarone Drug Evaluation (CASCADE) study, a randomized clinical trial comparing amiodarone with other antiarrhythmic drug therapy in survivors of out-of-hospital VF. The annual rate of rehospitalization was 79/100 patients/year; 168 of 224 patients (75%) were hospitalized at least once before censoring or cardiac mortality. Baseline left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly lower in patients who were rehospitalized. Rehospitalization rates were lower in patients randomized to amiodarone therapy and in those with the automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, although neither difference was statistically significant. However, length of stay for the first rehospitalization was shorter for patients with automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (p = 0.005). More than 50% of patients were rehospitalized in the first year after enrollment; 65% with ejection fractions < or = 0.3 were rehospitalized in the first year. Rehospitalization was a frequent occurrence for surviving patients of out-of-hospital VF, particularly in those with low ejection fractions.

The implantable defibrillator and antiarrhythmic drugs--competitive and complementary treatment for severe ventricular arrhythmia

Most patients with a history of sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) are at high risk of recurrence. Implanted defibrillators (ICDs) are highly effective in sensing and converting VT or VF to a perfusing rhythm. "Conventional" antiarrhythmic agents, which primarily block cardiac sodium channels, are relatively ineffective in preventing arrhythmia recurrence; amiodarone and sotalol appear to be effective in reducing recurrence and mortality rates, although the extent of benefit is not well understood. Despite the apparent advantage of ICDs, they have short- and long-term complications, are costly, and their benefit in prolonging the quantity or quality of life remains unproven. Randomized clinical trials which compare the effect of ICDs with that of antiarrhythmic drugs on mortality, cost, and quality of life will be necessary to understand how patients with malignant arrhythmias ought to be treated. If an ICD is implanted, adjunctive therapies need to be considered to treat the underlying heart disease and to derive optimum benefit from the device. Drugs may have beneficial or adverse interactions with devices, and the full understanding of these interactions requires further study.

A simplified, single-lead unipolar transvenous cardioversion-defibrillation system

BACKGROUND

Transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators provide significant advantages in the treatment of patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. However, present technology requires considerable electrophysiology expertise, multiple incisions, and long operative times for successful implementation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this study, we present a prototype of a new, easy-to-insert unipolar transvenous defibrillation system that has the reliability of epicardial defibrillation but the ease of pacemaker insertion. This system incorporates a single anodal right ventricular defibrillation electrode using a 65% tilt biphasic pulse delivered to a 108-cm2 surface area pulse generator titanium alloy shell as an active cathode placed in a left infraclavicular pocket. Testing of this system was performed before implantation of a standard nonthoracotomy-transvenous defibrillation system in 40 consecutive patients with a history of ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation. The simplified unipolar single-lead system resulted in a defibrillation threshold of 9.3 +/- 6.0 J with 37 of 40 patients (93%) having a defibrillation threshold of less than 20 J. Moreover, the unipolar defibrillation system was efficiently used requiring only 3.4 +/- 0.8 ventricular fibrillation inductions to measure the defibrillation threshold and 100 +/- 28 minutes to implement.

CONCLUSIONS

This new unipolar transvenous defibrillation system is as simple to insert as a pacemaker, requires few ventricular fibrillation inductions, demands less technical expertise, and provides defibrillation at energy levels comparable to that reported with epicardial lead systems. It should substantially reduce the morbidity, time, and cost of defibrillator implantation.

Implantable transvenous cardioverter-defibrillators

BACKGROUND

Implantable transvenous cardioverter-defibrillators offer a significant opportunity to decrease procedural morbidity and medical costs in the care of patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias who otherwise would have required a sternotomy or thoracotomy for device insertion. The purpose of this study was to examine prospectively the safety, efficacy, and limitations associated with the use of a transvenously implanted, tiered-therapy cardioverter-defibrillator with antitachycardia pacing function in a consecutive population of 84 ventricular fibrillation (VF) and sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) survivors.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The index arrhythmia promoting transvenous cardioverter-defibrillator implantation was VF in 41 patients, VT in 27, and both VF and VT in 16. In each patient, transvenous defibrillation via a coronary sinus, a right ventricular, a superior vena caval, and/or a subcutaneous chest patch lead system was attempted. The pulsing methods used include two-electrode single-pathway pulsing or three-electrode dual-pathway simultaneous or sequential pulsing. A transvenous cardioverter-defibrillator was inserted if the defibrillation threshold (DFT) was < or = 20 J. Successful implantation of a transvenous cardioverter-defibrillator was possible in 80 of 84 (95%) patients. The mean implant DFT was 10.9 +/- 4.8 J. After cardioverter-defibrillator implantation, all patients were extubated in the operating room and sent to a standard telemetry ward for monitoring. No patient suffered a postoperative pulmonary complication or perioperative flurry of cardiac arrhythmias. Postoperative complications included lead dislodgments in eight, transient long thoracic nerve injury in one, asymptomatic left subclavian vein occlusion in two, asymptomatic small pericardial effusion in one, subcutaneous patch pocket hematomas in four, pulse generator pocket infection in one, and lead fracture in one. As experience was gained with the procedure, it was routine to discharge patients 3 days after surgery. The mean hospital stay was 6.0 +/- 2.4 days. Upon discharge, all patients returned to their prehospital activities including those with complications except for the patient with a pocket infection, who required intravenous antibiotic therapy. Patient survival using an intention-to-treat analysis was 98% over an 11 +/- 7-month follow-up period. During this time period, 31 of the 80 patients (39%) with transvenous lead systems were successfully treated by their device for sustained VT or VF. Antitachycardia pacing was used in 424 episodes of monomorphic VT and was successful in 371 (88%). All episodes of VF were aborted by the device. Antiarrhythmic drugs were used after device implantation in only eight of 80 patients (10%).

CONCLUSIONS

Transvenous cardioverter-defibrillator implantation is practical in most candidates. Implant DFTs are usually low, surgical morbidity and postoperative complications are modest, therapy of VT and VF is efficient, and survival is excellent.

Automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator: cost effectiveness

Unexpected out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is in most cases due to ventricular fibrillation or rapid ventricular tachycardia. The usual therapeutic strategy in survivors starts with drug treatment, in case of failure followed by nonpharmacological therapy, which may include catheter ablation, ablative surgery, and finally defibrillator implantation. In most cases, this strategy is long lasting and very expensive. Implantation of a defibrillator as a first choice therapy may be cost effective, especially if the probability of successful drug treatment is low. However, cost-effective aspects have been studied only retrospectively and in models. In 1989 we started a prospective cost-effectiveness analysis of implantation of the automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (AICD) as first choice therapy ("early" AICD implantation) in successfully resuscitated postinfarct patients. Evaluation is being done in a randomized way with one group having early AICD implantation and the other group following the usual conventional therapeutic strategy. We compare medical, economic, and quality-of-life aspects. As of June 1992, 46 patients have entered the study. Totally 60 patients will be included. Results are expected in 1993 and will be expressed as cost effectiveness ratios in both study arms.

A population-based estimate of candidacy rates for the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) increases survival of patients who receive the device. However, candidacy rates have not been calculated for a defined population, and the potential effect of the device on the survival of all patients with heart disease has not been estimated. To make these calculations, medical records were reviewed for 1976 to 1988 in a population demographically similar to the white population of the United States. Definite and possible candidates were identified on the basis of American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines. Candidacy rates ranged from 3.3/100,000 (counting only definite candidates for the entire period) to 8.7/100,000 (counting definite and possible candidates after 1980). Extrapolated to the 1990 U.S. population, estimates ranged from 8,207 to 21,637 new candidates each year. During an average follow-up of 5 years, half of all deaths among candidates had the potential to be delayed by an ICD. In a similar population that has a death rate from heart disease of approximately 280/100,000, 0.6 to 1.6% of subjects have the potential to have their deaths delayed to some extent by an ICD.

Implications for present and future applications of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator resulting from the use of a simple model of cost efficacy

OBJECTIVE

To develop a model to assess the cost-efficacy of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator to prevent sudden death. The model must be sufficiently flexible to allow the use of cost and survival figures derived from different sources.

SETTING

The study was conducted in a teaching hospital department of cardiology with experience of 40 implantable cardioverter defibrillator implants and a large database of over 500 survivors of myocardial infarction.

PROCEDURE

The basic costs of screening tests, stay in hospital, and purchase of implantable cardioverter defibrillators were derived from St George's Hospital during 1991. To assess the cost-efficacy of various strategies for the use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators, survival data taken from published studies or from our own database. Implications of the national cost of the various strategies were calculated by estimating the number of patients a year requiring implantation of a defibrillator if the strategy was adopted.

RESULTS

Use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in survivors of cardiac arrest costs between 22,400 pounds and 57,000 pounds for each year of life saved. Most of the strategies proposed by the current generation of implantable cardioverter defibrillator trials have cost efficacies in the same range, and adoption of any one of these strategies in the United Kingdom could cost between 2 million pounds and 100 million pounds a year. Future technical and medical developments mean that cost-efficacy may be improved by up to 80%. Due to the limitations of screening tests currently available restriction on the use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators to those groups where it seems highly cost-effective will result in a small impact on overall mortality from sudden cardiac death.

CONCLUSION

Present and possible future applications of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator seem expensive when compared with currently accepted treatments. Technical and medical developments are, however, likely to result in a dramatic improvement in cost efficacy over the next few years.

Prevention of sudden cardiac death: the ICD, or an electrical end-point with preceding opportunities for intervention?

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is usually due to monomorphic ventricular tachycardia and/or ventricular fibrillation. However, in the vast majority of patients these arrhythmias are associated with advanced structural disease. In our society, this is usually due to coronary artery disease (CAD). The implantable cardioverter--defibrillator is the logical approach to management in survivors of SCD. Its rational use must be guided by electrophysiology study. However, a realistic and cost-effective approach to the prevention of a first cardiac arrest must be multifaceted and take cognisance of other aspects including primary prevention. Limitation of the size of myocardial infarction (MI) is vital. Trials already suggests that effective thrombolysis may impinge long-term on arrhythmic end-points. Following infarction, ventricular arrhythmias and sudden death may also be decreased by aspirin, beta-blockers, and possibly angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and amiodarone. Many post-infarction studies employ a combined end-point of death and clinical arrhythmias. However, death is usually confined to those with an ejection fraction < 35%. In them, treatment of associated heart failure is often a consideration and if the ejection fraction < 15-20%, depending on donor availability, transplantation may even be the preferred therapeutic option to the cardioverter-defibrillator.

Driving restrictions advised by midwestern cardiologists implanting cardioverter defibrillators: present practices, criteria utilized, and compatibility with existing state laws

Although some patients remain at risk of losing physical control or collapsing after implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator for sustained ventricular arrhythmias, little is known about restrictions advised by arrhythmia specialists to patients with implanted devices concerning physical activities such as driving. In this study, all of the 58 cardiologists implanting cardioverter defibrillators in three contiguous midwestern states were surveyed to determine present practices and the compatibility of these practices with existing state law. Of the 51 respondents (88%), 27 cardiologists (53%) advised only those implanted patients who had had arrhythmia-induced presyncope or physical collapse to cease driving. Twenty two of the remaining cardiologists (43%) advised all implanted patients to cease driving, whereas two cardiologists (4%) never advised any implanted patient to restrict driving. Permanent driving abstinence was advised by seven of the responding cardiologists (14%), while temporary driving abstinence for periods of 2-12 months (mean 6 +/- 3 months) was recommended by the remaining 42 respondents (82%) who advised against driving. The criteria utilized, driving restrictions advised, and durations advised for driving restrictions were not uniform in any of the 13 surveyed university and nonaffiliated cardiology practices with greater than or equal to 2 implanting cardiologists. Overall, 38 cardiologists (74%) advised against driving and recommended durations that equaled or exceed their state's minimum legal requirements, although only 27 of the 51 cardiologists (53%) based their practice upon knowledge of their state's driving laws. The results of this survey suggest that the majority of cardiologists who implant cardioverter defibrillators advise their patients against driving postoperatively.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Implantable defibrillators for prevention of sudden death. Technology at a medical and economic crossroad

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy is now widely used for the treatment of symptomatic patients with documented or suspected life-threatening VTs. Although sudden death recurrence in ICD recipients is virtually eliminated, the extent of benefit both with respect to cardiac mortality and total survival in this patient population remains to be accurately quantitated, particularly vis-à-vis alternative antiarrhythmic therapies. Advanced device and lead systems can be expected to further improve both patient survival and quality of life after implant. The economic impact of unrestrained proliferation in ICD therapy can be enormous; however, available cost-benefit analyses support judicious use of this therapy with comparable economic impact to other accepted cardiovascular therapies. Such prospective risk stratification becomes economically essential when considering expanding its application to asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic populations at potential risk for future cardiac arrest.