Cost-Effectiveness of a Microvolt T-Wave Alternans Screening Strategy for Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Placement in the MADIT-II–Eligible Population Original Research Article

Objectives This study was designed to compare the cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement with and without risk stratification with microvolt T-wave alternans (MTWA) testing in the MADIT-II (Second Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial) eligible population. Background Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators have been shown to prevent mortality in the MADIT-II population. Microvolt T-wave alternans testing has been shown to be effective in risk stratifying MADIT-II–eligible patients. Methods On the basis of published data, cost-effectiveness of three therapeutic strategies in MADIT-II–eligible patients was assessed using a Markov model: 1) ICD placement in all; 2) ICD placement in patients testing MTWA non-negative;, and 3) medical management. Outcomes of expected cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness were determined for patient lifetime. Results Under base-case assumptions, providing ICDs only to those who test MTWA non-negative produced a gain of 1.14 QALYs at an incremental cost of $55,700 when compared to medical therapy, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $48,700/QALY. When compared with a MTWA risk-stratification strategy, placing ICDs in all patients resulted in an ICER of $88,700/QALY. Most (83%) of the potential benefit was achieved by implanting ICDs in the 67% of patients who tested MTWA non-negative. Results were most sensitive to the effectiveness of MTWA as a risk-stratification tool, MTWA negative screen rate, cost and efficacy of ICD therapy, and patient risk for arrhythmic death. Conclusions Risk stratification with MTWA testing in MADIT-II–eligible patients improves the cost-effectiveness of ICDs. Implanting defibrillators in all MADIT-II–eligible patients, however, is not cost-effective, with one-third of patients deriving little additional benefit at great expense.