• Title of article

    Cost Advantage of Dual-Chamber Versus Single-Chamber Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation Original Research Article

  • Author/Authors

    Zachary Goldberger، نويسنده , , Brian Elbel، نويسنده , , Craig A. McPherson، نويسنده , , A. David Paltiel، نويسنده , , Rachel Lampert، نويسنده ,

  • Issue Information
    روزنامه با شماره پیاپی سال 2005
  • Pages
    8
  • From page
    850
  • To page
    857
  • Abstract
    Objectives The purpose of this study was to determine the least expensive strategy for device selection in patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). Background Device cost for a single-chamber ICD is less than an atrioventricular (dual-chamber) ICD (AV-ICD); however, some patients without clinical need for AV-ICD at implantation might require a later upgrade, potentially offsetting the initial cost advantage of the single-chamber device. Methods Decision analysis was used to estimate expected resource utilization costs of three alternative implantation strategies: 1) single-chamber device in all, with later upgrade to AV-ICD if needed; 2) initial implantation of an AV-ICD in all; and 3) targeted device selection on the basis of results of electrophysiologic testing (presence or absence of induced bradyarrhythmias or atrial arrhythmias). Clinical base estimates were obtained from retrospective review of all patients receiving ICDs between June 1997 and July 2001 at a single university hospital. Economic inputs were collected from national and single-center sources. Results In patients without other indications for electrophysiologic study (EPS), the expected per-person cost was least with the strategy of universal initial AV-ICD implantation ($36,232) compared with initial single-chamber ICD/upgrade as needed ($39,230) or EPS-guided selection ($41,130). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that universal AV-ICD implantation remained least expensive with upgrade rates as low as 10%. At a 5% upgrade rate, AV-ICD remained cheapest if the device cost-differential narrowed to $1,568. For patients undergoing EPS for risk assessment, EP-guided selection was least expensive. Conclusions The strategy of universal AV-ICD implantation, which provides the benefits of dual-chamber capability while obviating any potential need for future upgrade, is the least costly strategy for most patient populations receiving ICDs.
  • Keywords
    EPS , ICD , Congestive heart failure , CHF , American College of Cardiology , AHA , American Heart Association , implantable cardioverter-defibrillator , Anti-arrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators trial , MADIT , Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial , MUSTT , Multicenter UnSustained Tachycardia Trial , SCD-HeFT , Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial , ACC , AV-ICD , atrioventricular (dual-chamber) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator , AVID , DAVID , Dual-Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator trial , electrophysiology/electrophysiologic study , NASPE , North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology
  • Journal title
    JACC (Journal of the American College of Cardiology)
  • Serial Year
    2005
  • Journal title
    JACC (Journal of the American College of Cardiology)
  • Record number

    460186