The cost-effectiveness of primary prophylactic implantable defibrillator therapy in patients with ischaemic or non-ischaemic heart disease: a European analysis

Revascularization and Left Ventricular Dysfunction for ICD Eligibility

Common triggers for sudden cardiac death (SCD) are transient ischemia, hemodynamic fluctuations, neurocardiovascular influences, and environmental factors. SCD occurs rapidly when sinus rhythm degenerates into ventricular tachycardia (VT) and/or ventricular fibrillation (VF), followed by asystole. Such progressive worsening of the cardiac rhythm is in most cases observed in the setting of ischemic heart disease and often associated with advanced left ventricular (LV) impairment. Revascularization prevents negative outcomes including SCD and heart failure (HF) due to LV dysfunction (LVD). The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) on top of medical therapy is superior to antiarrhythmic drugs for patients with LVD and VT/VF. The beneficial effects of ICD have been demonstrated in primary prevention of SCD as well. However, yet debated is the temporal management for patients with LVD who are eligible to ICD prior to revascularization, either through percutaneous or surgical approach. Restoration of coronary blood flow has a dramatic impact on adverse LV remodeling, while it requires aggressive long-term antiplatelet therapy, which might increase complication for eventual ICD procedure when percutaneous strategy is pursued; on the other hand, when LV and/or multiorgan dysfunction is present and coronary artery bypass grafting is chosen, the overall risk is augmented, mostly in HF patients. The aims of this review are to describe the pathophysiologic benefits of revascularization, the studies addressing percutaneous, surgical or no revascularization and ICD implantation, as well as emerging defibrillation strategies for patients deemed at transient risk of SCD and/or at higher risk for transvenous ICD implantation.

Economic evaluation in cardiac electrophysiology: Determining the value of emerging technologies

Cardiac electrophysiology is a constantly evolving speciality that has benefited from technological innovation and refinements over the past several decades. Despite the potential of these technologies to reshape patient care, their upfront costs pose a challenge to health policymakers who are responsible for the assessment of the novel technology in the context of increasingly limited resources. In this context, it is critical for new therapies or technologies to demonstrate that the measured improvement in patients' outcomes for the cost of achieving that improvement is within conventional benchmarks for acceptable health care value. The field of Health Economics, specifically economic evaluation methods, facilitates this assessment of value in health care. In this review, we provide an overview of the basic principles of economic evaluation and provide historical applications within the field of cardiac electrophysiology. Specifically, the cost-effectiveness of catheter ablation for both atrial fibrillation (AF) and ventricular tachycardia, novel oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in AF, left atrial appendage occlusion devices, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy will be reviewed.

Beta-blockers in cardiac arrhythmias-Clinical pharmacologist's point of view

β-blockers is a vast group of antiarrhythmic drugs which differ in their pharmacokinetic and chemical properties. Some of them block β-adrenergic receptors selectively while the others work non-selectively. Consequently, they reduce the influence of the sympathetic nervous system on the heart, acting negatively inotropic, chronotropic, bathmotropic and dromotropic. Although they have been present in medicine since the beginning of the 1960s, they still play a crucial role in the treatment of cardiac arrhythmias. They are also first-line group of drugs used to control the ventricular rate in patients with the most common arrhythmia-atrial fibrillation. Previous reports indicate that infection with SARS-CoV-2 virus may constitute an additional risk factor for arrhythmia. Due to the aging of the population in developed countries and the increase in the number of patients with cardiac burden, the number of people suffering from cardiac arrhythmias will increase in the upcoming years. As a result the role of above-mentioned beta-blockers will remain significant. Particularly noteworthy is propranolol-the oldest beta adrenergic antagonist, which in recent years has found additional applications due to its unique properties. In this article, we reviewed the accessible literature and summarized the current guidelines on the use of beta-blockers in the treatment of cardiac arrhythmias.

Arrhythmic risk prediction in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy: external validation of the arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy risk calculator

AIMS

Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) causes ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) and sudden cardiac death (SCD). In 2019, a risk prediction model that estimates the 5-year risk of incident VAs in ARVC was developed (ARVCrisk.com). This study aimed to externally validate this prediction model in a large international multicentre cohort and to compare its performance with the risk factor approach recommended for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) use by published guidelines and expert consensus.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In a retrospective cohort of 429 individuals from 29 centres in North America and Europe, 103 (24%) experienced sustained VA during a median follow-up of 5.02 (2.05-7.90) years following diagnosis of ARVC. External validation yielded good discrimination [C-index of 0.70 (95% confidence interval-CI 0.65-0.75)] and calibration slope of 1.01 (95% CI 0.99-1.03). Compared with the three published consensus-based decision algorithms for ICD use in ARVC (Heart Rhythm Society consensus on arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy, International Task Force consensus statement on the treatment of ARVC, and American Heart Association guidelines for VA and SCD), the risk calculator performed better with a superior net clinical benefit below risk threshold of 35%.

CONCLUSION

Using a large independent cohort of patients, this study shows that the ARVC risk model provides good prognostic information and outperforms other published decision algorithms for ICD use. These findings support the use of the model to facilitate shared decision making regarding ICD implantation in the primary prevention of SCD in ARVC.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021.

STRUCTURE

Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

Sudden cardiac death in cardiomyopathies: acting upon "acceptable" risk in the personalized medicine era

Patients with cardiomyopathies are confronted with the risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) throughout their lifetime. Despite the fact that SCD is relatively rare, prognostic stratification is an integral part of physician-patient discussion, with the goal of risk modification and prevention. The current approach is based on a concept of "acceptable risk." However, there are intrinsic problems with an algorithm-based approach to risk management, magnified by the absence of robust evidence underlying clinical decision support tools, which can make high- versus low-risk classifications arbitrary. Strategies aimed at risk reduction range from selecting patients for an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) to disqualification from competitive sports. These clinical options, especially when implying the use of finite financial resources, are often delivered from the physician's perspective citing decision-making algorithms. When the burden of intervention-related risks or financial costs is deemed higher than an "acceptable risk" of SCD, the patient's perspective may not be appropriately considered. Designating a numeric threshold of "acceptable risk" has ethical implications. One could reasonably ask "acceptable to whom?" In an era when individual choice and autonomy are pillars of the physician-patient relationship, the subjective aspects of perceived risk should be acknowledged and be part of shared decision-making. This is particularly true when the lack of a strong scientific evidence base makes a dichotomous algorithm-driven approach suboptimal for unmitigated translation to clinical practice.

Cost-minimization analysis of a wearable cardioverter defibrillator in adult patients undergoing ICD explant procedures: Clinical and economic implications

Aims

Patients with permanently increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) can be protected by implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD). If an ICD must be removed due to infection, for example, immediate reimplantation might not be possible or indicated. The wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is an established, safe and effective solution to protect patients from SCD during this high‐risk bridging period. Very few economic evaluations on WCD use are currently available.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the available evidence of WCD in patients undergoing ICD explant/lead extraction. Additionally, a decision model was developed to compare use and costs of the WCD with standard therapy (in‐hospital stay). For this purpose, a cost‐minimization analysis was conducted, and complemented by a one‐way sensitivity analysis.

Results

In the base case scenario, the WCD was less expensive compared to standard therapy. The cost‐minimization analysis showed a cost reduction of €1782 per patient using the WCD. If costs of standard care were changed, cost savings associated with the WCD varied from €3500 to €0, assuming costs for standard care of €6800 to €3600.

Conclusion

After ICD explantation, patients can be safely and effectively protected from SCD after hospital discharge through WCD utilization. Furthermore, the use of a WCD for this patient group is cost saving when compared to standard therapy.

Comparative Effectiveness of Implantable Defibrillators for Asymptomatic Brugada Syndrome: A Decision-Analytic Model

Background

Optimal management of asymptomatic Brugada syndrome (BrS) with spontaneous type I electrocardiographic pattern is uncertain.

Methods and Results

We developed an individual‐level simulation comprising 2 000 000 average‐risk individuals with asymptomatic BrS and spontaneous type I electrocardiographic pattern. We compared (1) observation, (2) electrophysiologic study (EPS)‐guided implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD), and (3) upfront ICD, each using either subcutaneous or transvenous ICD, resulting in 6 strategies tested. The primary outcome was quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs), with cardiac deaths (arrest or procedural‐related) as a secondary outcome. We varied BrS diagnosis age and underlying arrest rate. We assessed cost‐effectiveness at $100 000/QALY. Compared with observation, EPS‐guided subcutaneous ICD resulted in 0.35 QALY gain/individual and 4130 cardiac deaths avoided/100 000 individuals, and EPS‐guided transvenous ICD resulted in 0.26 QALY gain and 3390 cardiac deaths avoided. Compared with observation, upfront ICD reduced cardiac deaths by a greater margin (subcutaneous ICD, 8950; transvenous ICD, 6050), but only subcutaneous ICD improved QALYs (subcutaneous ICD, 0.25 QALY gain; transvenous ICD, 0.01 QALY loss), and complications were higher. ICD‐based strategies were more effective at younger ages and higher arrest rates (eg, using subcutaneous devices, upfront ICD was the most effective strategy at ages 20–39.4 years and arrest rates >1.37%/year; EPS‐guided ICD was the most effective strategy at ages 39.5–51.3 years and arrest rates 0.47%–1.37%/year, and observation was the most effective strategy at ages >51.3 years and arrest rates <0.47%/year). EPS‐guided subcutaneous ICD was cost‐effective ($80 508/QALY).

Conclusions

Device‐based approaches (with or without EPS risk stratification) can be more effective than observation among selected patients with asymptomatic BrS. BrS management should be tailored to patient characteristics.

Health-related quality of life in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators in Sweden: a cross-sectional observational trial

OBJECTIVES

Decisions regarding implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) must consider information about presumed health-related quality of life (HRQL). The purpose of the study was to assess HRQL in patients with ICD and compare it to a Swedish age-matched and sex-matched population.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional observational trial.

SETTING

Swedish ICD cohort.

INTERVENTIONS

Short form 36 (SF-36) questionnaires from ICD recipients implanted 2007-2017 (response rate 77.2%) were analysed using Mann-Whitney U test and effect size (ES).

RESULTS

In total, 223 patients (mean age 71.1±9.7 years, 82.1% men) were included. In most SF-36 domains (physical functioning (PF), role physical, general health (GH), vitality, social functioning and mental health), the score for patients with ICD was significantly lower (ES range 0.23-0.41, ie, small difference) than norms, except for bodily pain and role emotional. Both the physical component summary (PCS) and the mental component summary (MCS) scores had ES=0.31. Men and women had similar scores. Primary and secondary prevention patients scored similarly, except for worse GH in primary prevention (p=0.016, ES=0.35). Atrial fibrillation was associated with worse PF (ES=0.41) and PCS (ES=0.38). Appropriate therapy, inappropriate shock or complications requiring surgery were not associated with lower scores in any domain. In primary prevention due to ischaemic versus non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy, no domain was significantly different. PCS decreased with higher age strata (p=0.002) in contrast to MCS (p=0.986).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with ICDs have lower physical and mental HRQL than age-matched and sex-matched norms; however, the ESs are small. HRQL is similar regardless of sex, primary/secondary prevention indication, appropriate therapy, inappropriate shock or complications, but decreases with advancing age.

Cost-Effectiveness of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators in Children with Cardiac Conditions Associated with Risk for Sudden Cardiac Death

Children at high risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD) receive implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) for prevention, but the cost effectiveness of ICDs in children at intermediate risk is unclear. Our objective was to create a cost-effectiveness model to compare costs and outcomes in children at risk of SCD, with and without ICD. Utilizing hypertrophic cardiomyopathy as the proxy disease, a theoretical cohort of 8150 children was followed for 69 years. Model inputs were derived from the literature, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) used to delineate cost effectiveness. Outcomes included prevalence of severe neurological morbidity (SNM), SCD, cost, and QALYs. In children at intermediate risk of SCD (4-6% over 5 years), ICD resulted in 56 fewer cases of SNM, 2686 fewer deaths. In children at high risk (> 6% over 5 years), ICD placement resulted in 74 fewer cases of SNM and 3663 fewer deaths from cardiac causes. The costs of ICD were higher, but placement was cost effective with an ICER of $3009 per QALY in intermediate risk children, but ICD therapy was a dominant strategy in high-risk children. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated ICD placement was cost-effective until the annual probability of SCD was < 0.22%. The model was robust over a wide range of values. For children at risk of SCD, prophylactic ICD implantation is cost effective, resulting in improved outcomes and increased QALYs, despite increased costs. These findings highlight the economic benefits of ICD utilization in this population.

Potential Bias Associated with Modeling the Effectiveness of Healthcare Interventions in Reducing Mortality Using an Overall Hazard Ratio

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials often report intervention efficacy in terms of the reduction in all-cause mortality between the treatment and control arms (i.e., an overall hazard ratio [oHR]) instead of the reduction in disease-specific mortality (i.e., a disease-specific hazard ratio [dsHR]). Using oHR to reduce all-cause mortality beyond the time horizon of the trial may introduce bias if the relative proportion of other-cause mortality increases with age. We sought to quantify this oHR extrapolation bias and propose a new approach to overcome this bias.

METHODS

We simulated a hypothetical cohort of patients with a generic disease that increased background mortality by a constant additive disease-specific rate. We quantified the bias in terms of the percentage change in life expectancy gains with the intervention under an oHR compared with a dsHR approach as a function of the cohort start age, the disease-specific mortality rate, dsHR, and the duration of the intervention's effect. We then quantified the bias in a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators based on efficacy estimates from a clinical trial.

RESULTS

For a cohort of 50-year-old patients with a disease-specific mortality of 0.05, a dsHR of 0.5, a calculated oHR of 0.55, and a lifetime duration of effect, the bias was 28%. We varied these key parameters over wide ranges and the resulting bias ranged between 3 and 140%. In the CEA, the use of oHR as the intervention's effectiveness overestimated quality-adjusted life expectancy by 9% and costs by 3%, biasing the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio by - 6%.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of an oHR approach to model the intervention's effectiveness beyond the time horizon of the trial overestimates its benefits. In CEAs, this bias could decrease the cost of a QALY, overestimating interventions' cost effectiveness.

Children with heart transplants: Lessons learned from 774 visits at a primary community clinic

Aims Unexpected decompensation of PHTRs may surprise, when the patient is at home. If the PHTR lives a distance from transplant center, the task of identifying risk factors of allograft rejection/dysfunction falls primarily on the PCP in the PCC, whether or not they are knowledgeable toward pediatric heart-transplantation. Methods We reviewed the medical reports of three heart-transplanted children in our periphery clinic between the years 2005 and 2019. Results The unexpected death of one patient, hours after he left our health facility, was the impetus for writing this article. Another heart transplant child attended our periphery clinic for 774 visits. Majority of visits were casual, others were scheduled, and the rest were for administrative affairs. We referred the PHTR to the transplantation center in 9% of all visits. In remaining 91% visits, we handled problems locally. Conclusions One of the important lessons we have learned through handling the PHTR at the PCC is that, during daily workflows and dealing with the occasional visits of a heart transplant child, related critical clinical information to allograft rejection or its dysfunction can easily evade from awareness of the attending physician. Through this study, we demonstrated that a program of summoning the PHTR to "initiated monthly visits" at the PCC enables the PCP to be maximally aware of critical clinical information, in addition to limiting futile referrals of 91% of the visits to specialized centers, without adversely affecting the prognosis.

Cost-utility analysis of an implantable cardioverterdefibrillator for the treatment of patients with ischemic or non-ischemic New York Heart Association class II or III heart failure in Colombia

Introduction: The use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator reduces the probability of sudden cardiac death in patients with heart failure.Objective: To determine the cost-utility relationship of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator compared to optimal pharmacological therapy for patients with ischemic or non-ischemic New York Heart Association class II or III (NYHA II-III) heart failure in Colombia.Materials and methods: We developed a Markov model including costs, effectiveness, and quality of life from the perspective of the Colombian health system. For the baseline case, we adopted a time horizon of 10 years and discount rates of 3% for costs and 3.5% for benefits.The transition probabilities were obtained from a systematic review of the literature. The outcome used was the quality-adjusted life years. We calculated the costs by consulting with the manufacturers of the device offered in the Colombian market and using national-level pricing manuals. We conducted probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses.Results: In the base case, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator was USD$ 13,187 per quality-adjusted life year gained. For a willingness-to-pay equivalent to three times the gross domestic product per capita as a reference (USD$ 19,139 in 2017), the device would be a cost-effective strategy for the Colombian health system. However, the result may change according to the time horizon, the probability of death, and the price of the device.Conclusions: The use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for preventing sudden cardiac death in patients with heart failure would be a cost-effective strategy for Colombia. The results should be examined considering the uncertainty.

Dutch outcome in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy (DO-IT): registry design and baseline characteristics of a prospective observational cohort study to predict appropriate indication for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are widely used for the prevention of sudden cardiac death. At present, both clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of ICD therapy in primary prevention patients are topics of discussion, as only a minority of these patients will eventually receive appropriate ICD therapy.

METHODS/DESIGN

The DO-IT Registry is a nationwide prospective cohort with a target enrolment of 1,500 primary prevention ICD patients with reduced left ventricular function in a setting of structural heart disease. The primary outcome measures are death and appropriate ICD therapy for ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Secondary outcome measures are inappropriate ICD therapy, death of any cause, hospitalisation for ICD related complications and for cardiovascular reasons. As of December 2016, data on demographic, clinical, and ICD characteristics of 1,468 patients have been collected. Follow-up will continue up to 24 months after inclusion of the last patient. During follow-up, clinical and ICD data are collected based on the normal follow-up of these patients, assuming ICD interrogations take place every six months and clinical follow-up is once a year. At baseline, the mean age was 66 (standard deviation [SD] 10) years and 27% were women.

CONCLUSION

The DO-IT Registry represents a real-world nationwide cohort of patients receiving ICDs for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death with reduced left ventricular function in a setting of structural heart disease. The registry investigates the efficacy of the current practice and aims to develop prediction rules to identify subgroups who will not (sufficiently) benefit from ICD implantation and to provide results regarding costs and budget impact of targeted supply of primary preventions ICDs.

Primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator in patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is to evaluate the role of primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (NICM).

SETTING

A meta-analysis of RCTs performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines.

DATA SOURCES

The PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for relevant articles.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 5 RCTs with 2573 patients with NICM were included.

INTERVENTION

Primary prevention ICD, compared with medical therapy alone.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

All-cause mortality (primary outcome) and sudden cardiac death (SCD, secondary outcome).

DATA ANALYSIS

Summary estimate HR were constructed using the random-effect DerSimonian and Laird's model. Multiple study-level subgroup analyses were performed, and interaction was tested using random-effect analysis.

RESULTS

Compared with medical therapy alone, ICD placement was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.93; p<0.001; I²=0%) at a mean follow-up of 4.2 years. The risk of SCD was also lower with ICD placement (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.73; p=0.001; I²=0%) compared with control. On subgroup analyses, there was a suggestion of possible effect modification by age, in which benefit was observed in age group <60 years (HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.89), but not with age ≥60 years (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.03) (P_interaction=0.058), but not with other study-level variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with medical therapy alone, primary prevention ICD therapy in patients with NICM is associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality, especially in younger patients. Future dedicated studies are needed to investigate the role of primary prevention ICD in the elderly population.

PROSPEROREGISTRATIONNUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42016052010.

Brugada syndrome and the story of Dave

Brugada syndrome (BrS) is a little known genetic condition that causes severe disturbances in cardiac rhythm and may result in sudden unexpected cardiac death in an apparently healthy person. The heart structure is typically normal but there are problems with electrical activity. The syndrome is named after Spanish brothers who are cardiologists, Pedro and Josep Brugada. BrS is the major cause of sudden unexplained death syndrome (SUDS), also known as sudden arrhythmic death syndrome (SADS). Following a description of the syndrome, including its prevalence and incidence, how it is diagnosed and how it can be treated, we consider those who survive a cardiac arrest and what problems they may face. Most publications focus on the medical aspects of BrS but, of course, cardiac arrest can result in hypoxic brain damage. We conclude with the story of Dave, a 25-year-old man diagnosed with BrS following a nose bleed and subsequent cardiac arrest. He was left with a visual impairment, dystonia, hypersensitivity, and language and cognitive dysfunction. We look at Dave's strengths and weaknesses, his response to offered treatment, and his consequent improvement. We stress the contributions from members of the multidisciplinary team and offer suggestions for the rehabilitation of other survivors of BrS.

Identifying patients with less potential to benefit from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy: comparison of the performance of four risk scoring systems

Purpose

Patients at high non-sudden cardiac death risk may gain no significant benefit from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy. A number of approaches have been proposed to identify these patients, including single clinical markers and more complex scoring systems. The aims of this study were to use the proposed scoring systems to (1) establish how many current ICD recipients may be too high risk to derive significant benefit from ICD therapy and (2) evaluate how well the scoring systems predict short-term mortality in an unselected ICD cohort.

Methods

We performed a single-centre retrospective observational study of all new ICD implants over 5 years (2009–2013). We used four published scoring systems (Bilchick, Goldenberg, Kramer and Parkash) and serum urea to identify new ICD recipients whose short-term predicted mortality risk was high. We evaluated how well the scoring systems predicted death.

Results

Over 5 years, there were 406 new implants (79% male, mean age 70 (60–76), 58% primary prevention). During a follow-up of 936 ± 560 days, 96 patients died. Using the scoring systems, the proportion of ICD recipients predicted to be at high short-term mortality risk were 5.9% (Bilchick), 34.7% (Goldenberg), 7.4% (Kramer), 21.4% (Parkash) and 25% (urea, cut-off of >9.28 mM). All four risk scores predicted mortality (P < 0.0001); however, none outperformed urea for the prediction of 1- or 3-year mortality.

Conclusions

Using published scoring systems, a significant proportion of current ICD recipients are at high short-term mortality risk. Although all four scoring systems predicted mortality during follow-up, none significantly outperformed serum urea.

Improving the Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Medical Devices

Medical devices (MDs) have distinctive features, such as incremental innovation, dynamic pricing, the learning curve and organisational impact, that need to be considered when they are evaluated. This paper investigates how MDs have been assessed in practice, in order to identify methodological gaps that need to be addressed to improve the decision-making process for their adoption. We used the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist supplemented by some additional categories to assess the quality of reporting and consideration of the distinctive features of MDs. Two case studies were considered: transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) representing an emerging technology and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) representing a mature technology. Economic evaluation studies published as journal articles or within Health Technology Assessment reports were identified through a systematic literature review. A total of 19 studies on TAVI and 41 studies on ICDs were analysed. Learning curve was considered in only 16% of studies on TAVI. Incremental innovation was more frequently mentioned in the studies of ICDs, but its impact was considered in only 34% of the cases. Dynamic pricing was the most recognised feature but was empirically tested in less than half of studies of TAVI and only 32% of studies on ICDs. Finally, organisational impact was considered in only one study of ICDs and in almost all studies on TAVI, but none of them estimated its impact. By their very nature, most of the distinctive features of MDs cannot be fully assessed at market entry. However, their potential impact could be modelled, based on the experience with previous MDs, in order to make a preliminary recommendation. Then, well-designed post-market studies could help in reducing uncertainties and make policymakers more confident to achieve conclusive recommendations. © 2017 The Authors. Health Economics published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Treatment of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction-Recent Developments

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) represents at least half of the cases of heart failure, which is a syndrome defined as the inability of the heart to supply the body's tissues with an adequate amount of blood under conditions of normal cardiac filling pressure. HFrEF is responsible for high costs and rates of mortality, morbidity, and hospital admissions, mainly in developed countries. Thus, the need for better diagnostic methods and therapeutic approaches and consequently better outcomes is clear. In this article, we review the principal aspects of pathophysiology and diagnosis of HFrEF, with focus on emerging biomarkers and on recent echocardiographic methods for the assessment of left ventricular function. Furthermore, we discuss several major developments in pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatment of HFrEF in the last years, including cardiac resynchronization therapy, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and the recent and promising drug LCZ696, focusing on current indications, unanswered questions, and other relevant aspects.

Advocacy for outpatient cardiac rehabilitation globally

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are the leading cause of death globally. Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is an evidence-based intervention recommended for patients with CVD, to prevent recurrent events and to improve quality of life. However, despite the proven benefits, only a small percentage of those would benefit from CR actually receive it worldwide. This paper by the International Council of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation forwards the groundwork for successful CR advocacy to achieve broader reimbursement, and hence implementation.

METHODS

First, the results of the International Council's survey on national CR reimbursement policies by government and insurance companies are summarized. Second, a multi-faceted approach to CR advocacy is forwarded. Finally, as per the advocacy recommendations, the economic impact of CVD and the corresponding benefits of CR and its cost-effectiveness are summarized. This provides the case for CR reimbursement advocacy.

RESULTS

Thirty-one responses were received, from 25 different countries: 18 (58.1 %) were from high-income countries, 10 (32.4 %) from upper middle-income, and 3 (9.9 %) from lower middle-income countries. When asked who reimburses at least some portion of CR services in their country, 19 (61.3 %) reported the government, 17 (54.8 %) reported patients pay out-of-pocket, 16 (51.6 %) reported insurance companies, 12 (38.7 %) reported that it is shared between the patient and another source, and 7 (22.6 %) reported another source.

CONCLUSIONS

Many patients pay out-of-pocket for CR. CR reimbursement around the world is inconsistent and insufficient. Advocacy campaigns forwarding the CR cause, supported by the relevant literature, enlisting sources of support in a unified manner with an organized plan, are needed, and must be pursued persistently.

The Wearable Cardioverter/Defibrillator - Toy Or Tool?

After the success story of implantable cardioverter/defibrillator systems, prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) remains one of the main duties in cardiology. For patients with unkown or transient risk profile for SCD, a wearable cardioverter/defibrillator (WCD) has been established for temporary and effective prevention of sudden arrhythmic death. Several studies have shown safety and efficacy of the WCD, even though randomized studies proving a mortality benefit are still lacking. This review provides an overview of actual WCD data and usage, special indications and possible risks and complications. WCD use is effective and adequate for temporary prevention of SCD in chosen populations. In particular, it provides secured time for sophisticated risk stratification to identify patients at persistent risk for SCD. Nevertheless, prospective randomized trials seem mandatory to prove a prognostic relevance and the economic value of this device.

Improving the appropriateness of sudden arrhythmic death primary prevention by implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in patients with low left ventricular ejection fraction. Point of view

It is generally accepted that the current guidelines for the primary prevention of sudden arrhythmic death, which are based on ejection fraction, do not allow the optimal selection of patients with low left ventricular ejection fraction of ischemic and nonischemic etiology for implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator. Ejection fraction alone is limited in both sensitivity and specificity. An analysis of the risk of sudden arrhythmic death with a combination of multiple tests (ejection fraction associated with one or more arrhythmic risk markers) could partially compensate for these limitations. We propose a polyparametric approach for defining the risk of sudden arrhythmic death using ejection fraction in combination with other clinical and arrhythmic risk markers (i.e. late gadolinium enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance, T-wave alternans, programmed ventricular stimulation, autonomic tone, and genetic testing) that have been validated in nonrandomized trials. In this article, we examine these approaches to identify three subsets of patients who cannot be comprehensively assessed by the current guidelines: patients with ejection fraction of 35% or less and a relatively low risk of sudden arrhythmic death despite the ejection fraction value; patients with ejection fraction of 35% or less and high competitive risk of death due to evolution of heart failure or noncardiac causes; and patients with ejection fraction between 35 and 45% with relatively high risk of sudden arrhythmic death despite the ejection fraction value.

Economic evaluations of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a systematic review

The aim of this paper was to review the cost-effectiveness studies of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) for primary or secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD). A systematic review of the literature published in English or Spanish was performed by electronically searching MEDLINE and MEDLINE in process, EMBASE, NHS-EED, and EconLit. Some keywords were implantable cardioverter defibrillator, heart failure, heart arrest, myocardial infarction, arrhythmias, syncope, sudden death. Selection criteria were the following: (1) full economic evaluations published after 1995, model-based studies or alongside clinical trials (2) that explored the cost-effectiveness of ICD with or without associated treatment compared with placebo or best medical treatment, (3) in adult patients for primary or secondary prevention of SCD because of ventricular arrhythmias. Studies that fulfilled these criteria were reviewed and data were extracted by two reviewers. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed and a narrative synthesis was prepared. In total, 24 studies were included: seven studies on secondary prevention and 18 studies on primary prevention. Seven studies were performed in Europe. For secondary prevention, the results showed that the ICD is considered cost-effective in patients with more risk. For primary prevention, the cost-effectiveness of ICD has been widely studied, but uncertainty about its cost-effectiveness remains. The cost-effectiveness ratios vary between studies depending on the patient characteristics, methodology, perspective, and national settings. Among the European studies, the conclusions are varied, where the ICD is considered cost-effective or not dependent on the study.

A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Ferric Carboxymaltose in Patients With Iron Deficiency and Chronic Heart Failure in Spain

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Treatment with ferric carboxymaltose improves symptoms, functional capacity, and quality of life in patients with chronic heart failure and iron deficiency. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of ferric carboxymaltose treatment vs no treatment in these patients.

METHODS

We used an economic model based on the Spanish National Health System, with a time horizon of 24 weeks. Patient characteristics and ferric carboxymaltose effectiveness (quality-adjusted life years) were taken from the Ferinject® Assessment in patients with IRon deficiency and chronic Heart Failure trial. Health care resource use and unit costs were taken either from Spanish sources, or from the above mentioned trial.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis, patients treated with and without ferric carboxymaltose treatment acquired 0.335 and 0.298 quality-adjusted life years, respectively, representing a gain of 0.037 quality-adjusted life years for each treated patient. The cost per patient was €824.17 and €597.59, respectively, resulting in an additional cost of €226.58 for each treated patient. The cost of gaining 1 quality adjusted life year with ferric carboxymaltose was €6123.78. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the model. The probability of ferric carboxymaltose being cost-effective (< €30 000 per quality-adjusted life year) and dominant (more effective and lower cost than no treatment) was 93.0% and 6.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with ferric carboxymaltose in patients with chronic heart failure and iron deficiency, with or without anemia, is cost-effective in Spain.

Follow-up of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy: comparison of coronary artery disease and dilated cardiomyopathy

PURPOSE

Since several large trials have proven the effectiveness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in patients with left ventricular dysfunction, disadvantages have become more apparent. As the prognosis of patients with cardiovascular diseases is improving, assessment of ICD patients and re-evaluation of the current guidelines is mandatory. We aimed to evaluate differences in mortality and occurrence of (in)appropriate shocks in ICD patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) or dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM).

METHODS

In a large teaching hospital, all consecutive patients with systolic dysfunction due to CAD or DCM who received an ICD with and without resynchronisation therapy, were collected in a database.

RESULTS

A total of 320 consecutive patients (age 67 ± 10 years) were classified as CAD patients and 178 (63 ± 11 years) as DCM patients. Median follow-up was 40 months (interquartile range [IQR] 23─57 months). All-cause mortality was 14 % (CAD 15 % vs DCM 13 %). Appropriate shocks occurred in 13 % of all patients (CAD 15 % vs DCM 11 %, p = 0.12) and inappropriate shocks occurred in 10 % (CAD 8 % vs DCM 12 %, p = 0.27). Multivariate analysis demonstrated impaired left ventricular ejection fraction, QRS >120, age ≥75 years and low estimated glomerular filtration rate as predictors for all-cause mortality. Predictors for inappropriate shocks were permanent and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

CONCLUSION

Mortality rates were similar in patients with CAD and DCM who received an ICD. Furthermore, no differences were found in the occurrence of appropriate and inappropriate ICD interventions between these patient groups.

The cost effectiveness of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a systematic review of economic evaluations

BACKGROUND

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is the most common cause of death in developed countries, with more than 3 million people dying yearly. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are considered to be an effective treatment in the primary and secondary prevention of SCD; however, their cost is considerable and this poses questions regarding whether they are worth the investment relative to less expensive pharmacotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review is to investigate existing evidence regarding the cost effectiveness of ICD therapy and to identify the key drivers of cost effectiveness, for the purpose of informing interested policy and decision makers.

METHODOLOGY

A systematic review of the literature concerning the cost effectiveness of ICDs was undertaken. Electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane and Health Economic Evaluations Database were searched based on appropriate terms and their combinations. Economic evaluation studies that examined the cost effectiveness of ICDs were selected and 34 were included for evaluation.

RESULTS

Findings from the present analysis show that ICD therapy, in properly selected patients who are at high risk of sudden cardiac death, is associated with similar or better cost-effectiveness ratios compared with other well accepted conventional treatments. The cost effectiveness of ICDs is influenced by several factors, including ICD efficacy and safety, impact on patient quality of life, device original implantation cost, frequency and cost of battery replacement, patient demographics and risk profile and analysis time horizon.

CONCLUSION

ICDs may represent a cost-effective option relative to pharmacotherapy in appropriately selected patient groups. The cost-effectiveness ratios appear to be at acceptable and comparable levels to other established treatments in cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular diseases. However, cost effectiveness is highly related to several factors and hence economic efficiency is highly dependent on conditions that need to be fulfilled for each individual case in medical practice. The aforementioned factors and technological advances imply that to ensure cost-effective use of ICD therapy, continuous research is needed.

Implementation of guidelines for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in clinical practice: Which patients do benefit?

PURPOSE

Based on multiple large clinical trials conducted over the last decades guidelines for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantations have been evolving. The increase in primary prophylactic ICD implantations challenges us to be critical towards the indications in certain patient populations.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected patient characteristics and rates of appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapy, appropriate and inappropriate ICD shock and mortality of all patients who received an ICD in the University Medical Center Utrecht (UMCU) over the years 2006-2011.

RESULTS

A total of 1075 patients were included in this analysis (74 % male, mean age 61 ± 13 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 30 ± 13 %); 61 % had a primary indication and 58 % had ischaemic heart disease. During a mean follow-up period of 31 ± 17 months, 227 of the patients (21 %) received appropriate ICD therapy (149 (14 %) patients received an appropriate ICD shock). Females, patients with a primary prophylactic indication and patients with non-ischaemic heart disease experienced significantly less ICD therapy. Only a few patients (54, 5 %) received inappropriate ICD therapy; 33 (3 %) patients received an inappropriate ICD shock. Fifty-five patients died within one year after ICD implantation and were therefore, in retrospect, not eligible for ICD implantation.

CONCLUSION

Our study confirms the benefit of ICD implantation in clinical practice. Nevertheless, certain patients experience less benefit than others. A more patient-tailored risk stratification based on electrophysiological parameters would be lucrative to improve clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness.

Cost-effectiveness of heart failure therapies

Heart failure (HF) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Management of HF involves accurate diagnosis and implementation of evidence-based treatment strategies. Costs related to the care of patients with HF have increased substantially over the past 2 decades, partly owing to new medications and diagnostic tests, increased rates of hospitalization, implantation of costly novel devices and, as the disease progresses, consideration for heart transplantation, mechanical circulatory support, and end-of-life care. Not surprisingly, HF places a huge burden on health-care systems, and widespread implementation of all potentially beneficial therapies for HF could prove unrealistic for many, if not all, nations. Cost-effectiveness analyses can help to quantify the relationship between clinical outcomes and the economic implications of available therapies. This Review is a critical overview of cost-effectiveness studies on key areas of HF management, involving pharmacological and nonpharmacological clinical therapies, including device-based and surgical therapeutic strategies.

Short term cost effectiveness of a regional myocardial infarction network

AIMS

Myocardial infarction networks have been shown to improve guideline adherent therapy and outcomes in patients presenting with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Our objective was to assess the short term cost effectiveness of a network structure.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Outcome data and reimbursement data for the index hospital stay were gathered in consecutive patients with acute STEMI (n = 536) admitted to any of the hospitals in a 350.000 inhabitant rural network area during the years 2002 (n = 185), 2005 (n = 163) and 2008 (n = 188). Network structure was established between 2002 and 2005 aiming for identical treatment of all acute STEMI patients during 24 h/7d a week with primary angioplasty. Patient baseline characteristics in the different years were quite comparable. From 2002 to 2005 regional hospital mortality in STEMI patients decreased from 16% to 9%. Lower mortality under network conditions was confirmed in 2008. Reimbursement data of different years were standardized to exclude effects not induced by the network. The mean initial costs per saved live during the index stay were €7727 with a 95%-confidence interval of €-3.500 to €36.700 (referenced to the German reimbursement in 2005).

CONCLUSION

The short term cost effectiveness of a myocardial infarction network organisation is within well accepted boundaries under conditions of the German reimbursement system.