New medical technologies in a cost containment environment: Implantable antitachyarrhythmia devices

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.

The additional hospital costs generated in the management of complications of pacemaker and defibrillator implantations

The rapid approach of capitated reimbursement mandates that providers examine their practice patterns associated with all surgical procedures. Documentation of (1) the complications associated with these procedures and (2) the additional hospital costs associated with the management of these complications is critical for comprehensive fiscal accountability. This study analyzed (1) the feasibility of obtaining accurate hospital cost data specific for complications and (2) the outcome in terms of fully loaded hospital costs generated in the management of the most common surgical complications associated with pacemaker and nonthoracotomy implantable defibrillator therapies. Between July 1989 and September 1994, a total of 1031 pacemaker and 105 implantable defibrillator procedures were performed by a cardiac surgeon in a tertiary-level teaching hospital setting. The additional fully loaded hospital costs were determined by (1) correlating clinical data from the complete medical record with complete hospital charge data for the admission(s) related to the complication, (2) carving out complication-related charges based on the clinical data, (3) converting complication-related charges to fully loaded costs based on conversion factors in effect at the time of service, and (4) correlating cost with hospital net reimbursement and payor source. The feasibility study determined that accurate and reliable cost data specific to complications can be obtained, although the process was cumbersome and difficult. The outcomes study determined that mean fully loaded complication costs were $4345 +/- $1540 for pacemaker lead revision and $4879 +/- $3167 for implantable defibrillator lead dislodgement, $24,459 +/- $14,585 for pacemaker infection, and $13,736 +/- $12,505 for defibrillator generator system malfunction. The one infected defibrillator cost $57,213 to treat. Costs exceeded reimbursement for almost all Medicare patients with complications in this study, suggesting that similar shortfalls would occur under a capitation scheme. This information is critical to a complete understanding of the financial impact of interventional procedures in a capitated reimbursement environment.

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.

NASPE/ACC/AHA/ESC medical/scientific statement special report--clinical investigation of antiarrhythmic devices: a statement for healthcare professionals from a Joint Task Force of the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology, the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Working Groups on Arrhythmias and Cardiac Pacing of the European Society of Cardiology

The goal of radiofrequency catheter ablation and the criterion for efficacy is the elimination of arrhythmogenic myocardium. The application of radiofrequency current in the heart clearly results in lower morbidity and mortality rates than thoracic and cardiac surgical procedures in general, and comparisons of therapy with radiofrequency catheter ablation and therapy with thoracic and cardiac surgical procedures in randomized clinical trials are unwarranted. Trials of radiofrequency catheter ablation versus medical or implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy may be indicated in certain conditions, such as ventricular tachycardia associated with coronary artery disease. Randomized trials are recommended for new and radical departures in technology that aim to accomplish the same goals as radiofrequency catheter ablation. Surveillance using registries and/or databases is necessary in the assessment of long-term safety and efficacy.

Clinical investigation of antiarrhythmic devices. A statement for healthcare professionals from a joint task force of the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology, the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Working Groups on Arrhythmias and Cardiac Pacing of the European Society of Cardiology

The goal of radiofrequency catheter ablation and the criterion for efficacy is the elimination of arrhythmogenic myocardium. The application of radiofrequency current in the heart clearly results in lower morbidity and mortality rates than thoracic and cardiac surgical procedures in general, and comparisons of therapy with radiofrequency catheter ablation and therapy with thoracic and cardiac surgical procedures in randomized clinical trials is unwarranted. Trials of radiofrequency catheter ablation versus medical or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy may be indicated in certain conditions, such as ventricular tachycardia associated with coronary artery disease. Randomized trials are recommended for new and radical departures in technology that aim to accomplish the same goals as radiofrequency catheter ablation. Surveillance using registries and/or databases is necessary in the assessment of long-term safety and efficacy.

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.

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.

An analysis of the cost effectiveness of the implantable defibrillator

The automatic implantable defibrillator has been shown to decrease the mortality of patients who have survived cardiac arrest due to ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation and are at high risk for recurrence. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of this seemingly expensive new technology with data obtained from the 1984 Medicare data base, the medical literature, Medicare carriers, individual pharmacies and hospitals, and expert opinion. Analyzing combinations of principal and secondary discharge diagnoses across 18 diagnosis-related groups, we estimated the cost of hospitalization for a comparison group of patients. Hospitalization costs for the defibrillator group were obtained from reported empirical data. Rehospitalization rates and other health-care use estimates were solicited from an expert panel of physicians, and mortality rates for both groups were obtained from the literature. Using a decision-analytic model, we estimated that the net cost effectiveness of the defibrillator, when used in the high-risk patient, is approximately $17,100 per life-year saved, with sensitivity analyses suggesting that the true value lies between $15,000 and $25,000. This estimate is well within the range that is currently accepted by the US medical care system for other life-saving interventions. We also estimated the cost effectiveness of the defibrillator in a 1991 scenario to be $7,400 per life-year saved, when the device would have greater longevity, would be programmable, and would not require a thoracotomy. Sensitivity analyses suggest that the true value lies between a value that is cost saving (less expensive than pharmacologic therapy) and $19,600 per life-year saved.