TY - JOUR
T1 - Clinical and economic implications of the multicenter automatic defibrillator implantation trial-II
AU - Al-Khatib, Sana M.
AU - Anstrom, Kevin J.
AU - Eisenstein, Eric L.
AU - Peterson, Eric D.
AU - Jollis, James G.
AU - Mark, Daniel B.
AU - Li, Yun
AU - O'Connor, Christopher M.
AU - Shaw, Linda K.
AU - Califf, Robert M.
PY - 2005/4/19
Y1 - 2005/4/19
N2 - Background: The Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT)-II demonstrated that implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) save lives when used in patients with a history of myocardial infarction (MI) and an ejection fraction of 0.3 or less. Objective: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of implanting ICDs in patients who met MADIT-II eligibility criteria and were enrolled in the Duke Cardiovascular Database between 1 January 1986 and 31 December 2001. Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis. Data Sources: Published literature, databases owned by Duke University Medical Center, and Medicare data. Target Population: Adults with a history of MI and an ejection fraction of 0.3 or less. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Societal. Interventions: ICD therapy versus conventional medical therapy. Outcomes Measures: Cost per life-year gained and incremental cost-effectiveness. Results: Compared with conventional medical therapy, ICDs are projected to result in an increase of 1.80 discounted years in life expectancy and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $50 500 per life-year gained. Cost-effectiveness varied dramatically with changes in time horizon: The cost-effectiveness ratio increased to $67 800 per life-year gained, $79 900 per life-year gained, $100 000 per life-year gained, $167 900 per life-year gained, and $367 200 per life-year gained for 15-year, 12-year, 9-year, 6-year, and 3-year time horizons, respectively. Changing the frequency of follow-up visits, complication rates, and battery replacements had less of an effect on the cost-effectiveness ratios than reducing the cost of ICD placement and leads. Limitations: The study was limited by the completeness of the data, referral bias, difference in medical therapy between the Duke cohort and the MADIT-II cohort, and not addressing potential upgrades to biventricular devices. Conclusions: The economic expense of defibrillator implantation in all patients who meet MADIT-II eligibility criteria is substantial. However, in the range of survival benefit observed in MADIT-II, ICD therapy for these patients is economically attractive by conventional standards.
AB - Background: The Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT)-II demonstrated that implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) save lives when used in patients with a history of myocardial infarction (MI) and an ejection fraction of 0.3 or less. Objective: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of implanting ICDs in patients who met MADIT-II eligibility criteria and were enrolled in the Duke Cardiovascular Database between 1 January 1986 and 31 December 2001. Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis. Data Sources: Published literature, databases owned by Duke University Medical Center, and Medicare data. Target Population: Adults with a history of MI and an ejection fraction of 0.3 or less. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Societal. Interventions: ICD therapy versus conventional medical therapy. Outcomes Measures: Cost per life-year gained and incremental cost-effectiveness. Results: Compared with conventional medical therapy, ICDs are projected to result in an increase of 1.80 discounted years in life expectancy and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $50 500 per life-year gained. Cost-effectiveness varied dramatically with changes in time horizon: The cost-effectiveness ratio increased to $67 800 per life-year gained, $79 900 per life-year gained, $100 000 per life-year gained, $167 900 per life-year gained, and $367 200 per life-year gained for 15-year, 12-year, 9-year, 6-year, and 3-year time horizons, respectively. Changing the frequency of follow-up visits, complication rates, and battery replacements had less of an effect on the cost-effectiveness ratios than reducing the cost of ICD placement and leads. Limitations: The study was limited by the completeness of the data, referral bias, difference in medical therapy between the Duke cohort and the MADIT-II cohort, and not addressing potential upgrades to biventricular devices. Conclusions: The economic expense of defibrillator implantation in all patients who meet MADIT-II eligibility criteria is substantial. However, in the range of survival benefit observed in MADIT-II, ICD therapy for these patients is economically attractive by conventional standards.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=17144390677&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=17144390677&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.7326/0003-4819-142-8-200504190-00007
DO - 10.7326/0003-4819-142-8-200504190-00007
M3 - Article
C2 - 15838065
AN - SCOPUS:17144390677
SN - 0003-4819
VL - 142
SP - 593
EP - 600
JO - Annals of internal medicine
JF - Annals of internal medicine
IS - 8
ER -