Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T01:22:14.953Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF CONTINUOUS-FLOW LEFT VENTRICULAR ASSIST DEVICES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 June 2013

Mattias Neyt ,
Ann Van den Bruel ,
Yolba Smit ,
Nicolaas De Jonge ,
Michiel Erasmus ,
Diederik Van Dijk  and
Joan Vlayen
Mattias Neyt
Affiliation:
ME-TA, Medical Evaluation and Technology Assessment
Ann Van den Bruel
Affiliation:
ME-TA, Medical Evaluation and Technology Assessment
Yolba Smit
Affiliation:
Independent researcher
Nicolaas De Jonge
Affiliation:
Department of Cardiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht
Michiel Erasmus
Affiliation:
Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen
Diederik Van Dijk
Affiliation:
Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht
Joan Vlayen
Affiliation:
ME-TA, Medical Evaluation and Technology Assessment
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Mechanical circulatory support through left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) improves survival and quality of life for patients with end-stage heart failure who are ineligible for cardiac transplantation. Our aim was to calculate the cost-effectiveness of continuous-flow LVADs.

Methods: A cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective was performed. A lifetime Markov model was set up in which continuous-flow LVAD was compared with optimal medical therapy (OMT). The treatment effect was modeled indirectly combining the results of the REMATCH trial comparing OMT with a pulsatile-flow LVAD and the HeartMate II Destination Therapy Trial comparing a pulsatile-flow LVAD with a continuous-flow LVAD. Cost data were based on real-world financial data of sixty-nine patients with a HeartMate II implantation from the University Medical Centre Utrecht (the Netherlands). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results: Comparing the continuous-flow HeartMate II with OMT, 3.23 (95 percent confidence interval [CI], 2.18–4.49) life-years were gained (LYG) or 2.83 (95 percent CI, 1.91–3.90) quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The cost of an LVAD implant was approximately €126,000, of which the device itself represented the largest cost, being €70,000. Total incremental costs amounted to €299,100 (95 percent CI, 190,500–521,000). This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €94,100 (95 percent CI, 59,100–160,100) per LYG or €107,600 (95 percent CI, 66,700–181,100) per QALY. Sensitivity analyses showed these results were robust.

Conclusions: Although LVAD destination therapy improves survival and quality of life, it remains a relatively expensive intervention which renders the reimbursement of this therapy questionable.

Keywords

Cost-benefit analysisHeart-assist devicesLeft ventricular assist devices
Type
ASSESSMENTS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , July 2013 , pp. 254 - 260
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Neyt, M, Smit, Y, Van den Bruel, A, Vlayen, J. Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) toegepast als bestemmingstherapie bij patiënten met eindstadium hartfalen: ME-TA, medical evaluation and technology assessment; 2011.Google Scholar
2.Rose, EA, Gelijns, AC, Moskowitz, AJ, et al.Long-term mechanical left ventricular assistance for end-stage heart failure. [Summary for patients in J Card Fail. 2002;8:59-60; PMID: 12016626]. [Summary for patients in J Card Fail. 2002;8:61-62; PMID: 12016627]. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1435–1443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Slaughter, MS, Rogers, JG, Milano, CA, et al.Advanced heart failure treated with continuous-flow left ventricular assist device. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:2241–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.College voor zorgverzekeringen. Pakketadvies. 2007;2007.Google Scholar
5.College voor zorgverzekeringen. Richtlijnen voor farmaco-economisch onderzoek; 2006.Google Scholar
6.Dembitsky, WP, Tector, AJ, Park, S, et al.Left ventricular assist device performance with long-term circulatory support: Lessons from the REMATCH trial. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;78:2123–2130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Coyle, LA, Ising, MS, Gallagher, C, et al.Destination therapy: One-year outcomes in patients with a body mass index greater than 30. Artif Organs. 2010;34:93–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Moskowitz, AJ, Weinberg, AD, Oz, MC, Williams, DL. Quality of life with an implanted left ventricular assist device. Ann Thorac Surg. 1997;64:1764–1769.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Hakkaart - van Roijen, L, Tan, S, Bouwmans, C. Handleiding voor kostenonderzoek: methoden en standaard kostprijzen voor economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg (geactualiseerde versie 2010): College voor zorgverzekeringen; 2010.Google Scholar
10.Raphael, C, Briscoe, C, Davies, J, et al.Limitations of the New York Heart Association functional classification system and self-reported walking distances in chronic heart failure. Heart. 2007;93:476–482.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Spertus, J.Assessing patients’ improvement in clinical trials. BMJ. 2008;336:1258–1259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Van Brabandt, H, Camberlin, C, Neyt, M, et al.Cardiac resynchronisation therapy. A Health technology Assessment. Brussels; 2010.Google Scholar
13.Adang, E, Groenewoud, H, van Hees, F, Krabbe, P, van der Wilt, G. Invoering van kunst- en steunhart als bestemmingstherapie voor patienten met eindstadium hartfalen: Gevolgen voor ziektelast en kosten van behandeling; 2006.Google Scholar
14.Clegg, AJ, Scott, DA, Loveman, Eet al., The clinical and cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices for end-stage heart failure: A systematic review and economic evaluation. HTA Technology Assessment Report: NIHR Health Technology Assessment program; 2005.Google ScholarPubMed
15.Girling, AJ, Freeman, G, Gordon, JP, Poole-Wilson, P, Scott, DA, Lilford, RJ. Modeling payback from research into the efficacy of left-ventricular assist devices as destination therapy. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:269–277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Messori, A, Trippoli, S, Bonacchi, M, Sani, G. Left ventricular assist device as destination therapy: Application of the payment-by-results approach for the device reimbursement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;138:480–485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Rogers, JG, Bostic, RR, Tong, KB, Adamson, R, Russo, M, Slaughter, MS. Cost-effectiveness analysis of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy. Circ Heart Fail. 2012;5:10–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Kirkels, JH, De Jonge, N, Lahpor, JR. Editorial: Assist devices in the new decade: From technical developments to political decisions. Eur J Heart Fail. 2010;12:217–218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: PDF

Neyt Supplementary Material

Tables S1-S2 and Figure S1-S2

Download Neyt Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 321.5 KB