Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Implantable Pulmonary Artery Pressure Monitoring in Chronic Heart Failure.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the CardioMEMS (CardioMEMS Heart Failure System, St Jude Medical Inc, Atlanta, Georgia) device in patients with chronic heart failure. BACKGROUND:The CardioMEMS device, an implantable pulmonary artery pressure monitor, was shown to reduce hospitalizations for heart failure and improve quality of life in the CHAMPION (CardioMEMS Heart Sensor Allows Monitoring of Pressure to Improve Outcomes in NYHA Class III Heart Failure Patients) trial. METHODS:We developed a Markov model to determine the hospitalization, survival, quality of life, cost, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CardioMEMS implantation compared with usual care among a CHAMPION trial cohort of patients with heart failure. We obtained event rates and utilities from published trial data; we used costs from literature estimates and Medicare reimbursement data. We performed subgroup analyses of preserved and reduced ejection fraction and an exploratory analysis in a lower-risk cohort on the basis of the CHARM (Candesartan in Heart failure: Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity) trials. RESULTS:CardioMEMS reduced lifetime hospitalizations (2.18 vs. 3.12), increased quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (2.74 vs. 2.46), and increased costs ($176,648 vs. $156,569), thus yielding a cost of $71,462 per QALY gained and $48,054 per life-year gained. The cost per QALY gained was $82,301 in patients with reduced ejection fraction and $47,768 in those with preserved ejection fraction. In the lower-risk CHARM cohort, the device would need to reduce hospitalizations for heart failure by 41% to cost <$100,000 per QALY gained. The cost-effectiveness was most sensitive to the device's durability. CONCLUSIONS:In populations similar to that of the CHAMPION trial, the CardioMEMS device is cost-effective if the trial effectiveness is sustained over long periods. Post-marketing surveillance data on durability will further clarify its value.

SUBMITTER: Sandhu AT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4851610 | biostudies-literature | 2016 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-Effectiveness of Implantable Pulmonary Artery Pressure Monitoring in Chronic Heart Failure.

Sandhu Alexander T AT Goldhaber-Fiebert Jeremy D JD Owens Douglas K DK Turakhia Mintu P MP Kaiser Daniel W DW Heidenreich Paul A PA

JACC. Heart failure 20160210 5

<h4>Objectives</h4>This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the CardioMEMS (CardioMEMS Heart Failure System, St Jude Medical Inc, Atlanta, Georgia) device in patients with chronic heart failure.<h4>Background</h4>The CardioMEMS device, an implantable pulmonary artery pressure monitor, was shown to reduce hospitalizations for heart failure and improve quality of life in the CHAMPION (CardioMEMS Heart Sensor Allows Monitoring of Pressure to Improve Outcomes in NYHA Class III Heart Fa ...[more]

PMID: 26874380

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsDuring the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, important changes in heart failure (HF) event rates have been widely reported, but few data address potential causes for these changes; several possibilities were examined in the GUIDE-HF study.Methods and resultsFrom 15 March 2018 to 20 December 2019, patients were randomized to haemodynamic-guided management (treatment) vs. control for 12 months, with a primary endpoint of all-cause mortality plus HF events. Pre-COVID-19, the primary endpoint rate was 0.553 vs. 0.682 events/patient-year in the treatment vs. control group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, P = 0.049]. Treatment difference was no longer evident during COVID-19 (HR 1.11, P = 0.526), with a 21% decrease in the control group (0.536 events/patient-year) and no change in the treatment group (0.597 events/patient-year). Data reflecting provider-, disease-, and patient-dependent factors that might change the primary endpoint rate during COVID-19 were examined. Subject contact frequency was similar in the treatment vs. control group before and during COVID-19. During COVID-19, the monthly rate of medication changes fell 19.2% in the treatment vs. 10.7% in the control group to levels not different between groups (P = 0.362). COVID-19 was infrequent and not different between groups. Pulmonary artery pressure area under the curve decreased -98 mmHg-days in the treatment group vs. -100 mmHg-days in the controls (P = 0.867). Patient compliance with the study protocol was maintained during COVID-19 in both groups.ConclusionDuring COVID-19, the primary event rate decreased in the controls and remained low in the treatment group, resulting in an effacement of group differences that were present pre-COVID-19. These outcomes did not result from changes in provider- or disease-dependent factors; pulmonary artery pressure decreased despite fewer medication changes, suggesting that patient-dependent factors played an important role in these outcomes. Clinical Trials.gov: NCT03387813.

Project description:BackgroundHeart failure patients with implantable defibrillators place a significant burden on health care systems. Remote monitoring allows assessment of device function and heart failure parameters, and may represent a safe, effective, and cost-saving method compared to conventional in-office follow-up.ObjectiveWe hypothesized that remote device monitoring represents a cost-effective approach. This paper summarizes the economic evaluation of the Evolution of Management Strategies of Heart Failure Patients With Implantable Defibrillators (EVOLVO) study, a multicenter clinical trial aimed at measuring the benefits of remote monitoring for heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators.MethodsTwo hundred patients implanted with a wireless transmission-enabled implantable defibrillator were randomized to receive either remote monitoring or the conventional method of in-person evaluations. Patients were followed for 16 months with a protocol of scheduled in-office and remote follow-ups. The economic evaluation of the intervention was conducted from the perspectives of the health care system and the patient. A cost-utility analysis was performed to measure whether the intervention was cost-effective in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.ResultsOverall, remote monitoring did not show significant annual cost savings for the health care system (€1962.78 versus €2130.01; P=.80). There was a significant reduction of the annual cost for the patients in the remote arm in comparison to the standard arm (€291.36 versus €381.34; P=.01). Cost-utility analysis was performed for 180 patients for whom QALYs were available. The patients in the remote arm gained 0.065 QALYs more than those in the standard arm over 16 months, with a cost savings of €888.10 per patient. Results from the cost-utility analysis of the EVOLVO study show that remote monitoring is a cost-effective and dominant solution.ConclusionsRemote management of heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators appears to be cost-effective compared to the conventional method of in-person evaluations.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00873899; http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00873899 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6H0BOA29f).

Project description:In a rapidly growing and aging population, heart failure (HF) has become recognised as a public health concern that imposes high economic and societal costs worldwide. HF management stems from the use of highly cost-effective angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and β-blockers to the use of newer drugs such as sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), ivabradine, and vericiguat. Modelling studies of pharmacological treatments that report on cost effectiveness in HF is important in order to guide clinical decision making. Multiple cost-effectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) suggests that it is not only cost-effective and has the potential to improve long-term clinical outcomes, but is also likely to meet conventional cost-effectiveness thresholds in many countries. Similar promising results have also been shown for vericiguat while a cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) of empagliflozin has shown cost effectiveness in HF patients with Type 2 diabetes. Despite the recent FDA approval of dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in HF, it might take time for these SGLT2i to be widely used in real-world practice. A recent economic evaluation of vericiguat found it to be cost effective at a higher cost per QALY threshold than SGLT2i. However, there is a lack of clinical or real-world data regarding whether vericiguat would be prescribed on top of newer treatments or in lieu of them. Sacubitril/valsartan has been commonly compared to enalapril in cost effectiveness analysis and has been found to be similar to that of SGLT2i but was not considered a cost-effective treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in Thailand and Singapore with the current economic evaluation evidences. In order for more precise analysis on cost effectiveness analysis, it is necessary to take into account the income level of various countries as it is certainly easier to allocate more financial resources for the intervention, with greater effectiveness, in high- and middle-income countries than in low-income countries. This review aims to evaluate evidence and cost effectiveness studies in more recent HF drugs i.e., SGLT2i, ARNi, ivabradine, vericiguat and omecamtiv, and gaps in current literature on pharmacoeconomic studies in HF.

Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Implantable Pulmonary Artery Pressure Monitoring in Chronic Heart Failure.

Publications

Cost-Effectiveness of Implantable Pulmonary Artery Pressure Monitoring in Chronic Heart Failure.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets