Real-world costs of transvenous lead extraction: the challenge for reimbursement

Aims

Transvenous lead extraction is challenging, often requiring specialist equipment and prolonged hospital admission. A single tariff or itemized costs may be available for reimbursement. Due to limited data relating to the costs of transvenous extraction, it is unclear whether either form of reimbursement is adequate. We aim to describe accurately the total real-world costs of managing patients undergoing transvenous extraction at a single, large centre. We further aim to consider the additional costs of device reimplantation.

Methods and results

At a single UK extraction centre, a retrospective, patient level service line analysis was undertaken, during a complete financial year. Seventy-four patients required transvenous extraction (47 infected and 27 non-infected; 156 leads). Sixty-nine procedures (93%) were performed under general anaesthesia, with a median time in theatre of 95 min [interquartile range (IQR) 71-120]. Specialist extraction tools were required for 130 leads (83%). The median hospitalization duration was 3 days (IQR 1-8). The mean cost of extraction was £9228 (±4099); infected £10 727 (±4178) and non-infected £6619 (±2269). With the additional costs of device reimplantation, the overall mean cost rose to £17 574 (±12 882); infected £22 615 (±13 343) and non-infected £8801 (±5007). At the time of this study, the UK NHS tariff was £2530 for elective and £4764 for non-elective extraction, covering barely half of the real costs.

Conclusion

We demonstrated a substantial difference between the real-world cost of extraction and the UK NHS tariff. Extracting centres should scrutinize their practice, including the timing of reimplantation.

Extended use of the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator in patients at risk for sudden cardiac death

Aims

Data on outcomes in patients using the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) > 90 days are limited. We aimed to analyse the clinical course of patients with WCD use ≤90 days vs. WCD use >90 days.

Methods and results

We assessed arrhythmia events during WCD use, and ejection fraction (EF) improvement/implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation at the end of WCD use in patients with WCD use ≤90 days vs. WCD use >90 days enrolled in the WEARIT-II registry, further assessed by disease aetiology (ischaemic vs. non-ischaemic vs. congenital/inherited heart disease). There were 981 (49%) patients with WCD use >90 days, and 1019 patients with WCD use ≤90 days (median 120 vs. 55 days). There was a lower incidence of sustained ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) events (11 vs. 50 events per 100 patient-years, P < 0.001), WCD treated VT/VF events (1 vs. 8 events per 100 patient-years, P < 0.001), and non-sustained VT events (21 vs. 51 events per 100 patient-years, P = 0.008) with WCD use >90 vs. WCD use ≤90 days. Non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy patients presented with similar rates of sustained VT/VF events during WCD use >90 vs. ≤90 days (13.4 vs. 13.7 events per 100 patient-years, P = 0.314), while most of these events terminated spontaneously. One-third of the patients with extended WCD use further improved their EF and they were not implanted with an ICD, with similar rates among ischaemic and non-ischaemic patients.

Conclusions

In WEARIT-II, patients with extended WCD use >90 days remain at risk for ventricular arrhythmia events. One-third of the patients with WCD use >90 days further improved their EF, avoiding the need to consider ICD implantation.

The Role of I-123 Metaiodobenzylguanidine Imaging in Management of Patients With Heart Failure

Despite advances in evidence-based treatments, the morbidity and mortality of congestive heart failure remain exceedingly high. In addition, the costs associated with recurrent hospitalizations and advanced therapies, such as implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs), left ventricular assist devices, and heart transplantation, place a substantial financial burden on the health care system. The present criteria for risk stratification in patients with heart failure are inadequate and often prevent the allocation of appropriate treatment. Patients who have received ICDs as primary prevention for sudden cardiac death often receive no device therapy in their lifetime, whereas other patients with left ventricular dysfunction die suddenly without meeting criteria for ICD implantation.

The healthcare utilization and cost of treating patients experiencing inappropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator shocks: a propensity score study

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate shocks (IASs) from implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are associated with decreased quality of life, but whether they increase healthcare utilization and treatment costs is unknown. We sought to determine the impact of IASs on subsequent healthcare utilization and treatment costs.

METHODS

We conducted a case-control analysis of ICD patients at a single institution from 1997 to 2010 and who had ≥12 months of post-ICD implant follow-up. Cases included all patients experiencing an IAS during the first 12 months after implantation. Eligible control patients did not receive a shock of any kind during the 12 months after implantation. Propensity scores based on 36 covariates (area under curve = 0.78) were used to match cases to controls. We compared the rate (occurrences/person year [PY]) of healthcare utilization immediately following IAS to the end of the 12-month follow-up period to the rate in the no-shock group over 12 months of follow-up. We also compared 12-month postimplant treatment (outpatient clinic, emergency room, and hospitalization) costs in both groups.

RESULTS

A total of 76 patients experiencing ≥1 IAS during the first 12 months after implant (contributing 48 PYs) were matched to 76 no-shock patients (contributing 76 PYs). Cardiovascular (CV)-related clinic visit and hospitalization rates were increased following an IAS compared to those not receiving a shock (4.0 vs 3.3 and 0.7 vs 0.5, respectively, P = 0.02 for both). CV-related emergency room visitation (0.15 vs 0.08) rates were also numerically higher following an IAS, but did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.26). Patients experiencing an IAS accrued greater treatment costs during the 12 months postimplant compared to no-shock patients ($13,973 ± $46,345 vs $6,790 ± $19,091, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Recipients of IAS utilize the healthcare system more frequently following an IAS than patients not experiencing a shock. This increased utilization results in higher costs of treating IAS patients during the 12 months postimplant.