Effect of Clinical Risk Stratification on Cost-Effectiveness of the Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator: The Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study

Background—Three randomized clinical trials showed that implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) reduce the risk of death in survivors of ventricular tachyarrhythmias, but the cost per year of life gained is high. A substudy of the Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study (CIDS) showed that 3 clinical factors, age ≥70 years, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, and New York Heart Association class III, predicted the risk of death and benefit from the ICD. We estimated the extent to which selecting patients for ICD therapy based on these risk factors makes ICD therapy more economically attractive. Methods and Results—Patients in CIDS were grouped according to whether they had ≥2 of 3 risk factors. Incremental cost-effectiveness of ICD therapy was computed as the ratio of the difference in mean cost to the difference in life expectancy between the 2 groups. Over 6.3 years, the mean cost per patient in the ICD group was Canadian (C) $87 715 versus $38 600 in the amiodarone group (C$1≈US$0.67). Life expectancy for the ICD group was 4.58 years versus 4.35 years for amiodarone, for an incremental cost-effectiveness of ICD therapy of C$213 543 per life-year gained. The cost per life-year gained in patients with ≥2 factors was C$65 195, compared with C$916 659 with <2 risk factors. Conclusions—The cost-effectiveness of ICD therapy varies by patient risk factor status. The use of ICD therapy in patients who have ≥2 risk factors of age ≥70 years, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, and NYHA class III is C$65 195 to gain a year of life.

[1]  M. Brodsky,et al.  Relative effectiveness of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and antiarrhythmic drugs in patients with varying degrees of left ventricular dysfunction who have survived malignant ventricular arrhythmias. AVID Investigators. Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators. , 1999, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[2]  S. Connolly,et al.  Meta-analysis of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator secondary prevention trials. AVID, CASH and CIDS studies. Antiarrhythmics vs Implantable Defibrillator study. Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg . Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study. , 2000, European heart journal.

[3]  E. Kaplan,et al.  Nonparametric Estimation from Incomplete Observations , 1958 .

[4]  A S Detsky,et al.  How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. , 1992, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[5]  R. Evans Cost-effectiveness analysis of transplantation. , 1986, The Surgical clinics of North America.

[6]  R. Cappato,et al.  Randomized comparison of antiarrhythmic drug therapy with implantable defibrillators in patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest : the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH). , 2000, Circulation.

[7]  L. Goldman,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of HMG-CoA reductase inhibition for primary and secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. , 1991, JAMA.

[8]  L E Hinkle,et al.  Clinical Classification of Cardiac Deaths , 1982, Circulation.

[9]  M Gent,et al.  Canadian implantable defibrillator study (CIDS) : a randomized trial of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator against amiodarone. , 2000, Circulation.

[10]  N. Zethraeus,et al.  Definition, interpretation and calculation of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. , 2000, Health economics.

[11]  S. Connolly,et al.  Identification of patients most likely to benefit from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy: the Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study. , 2000, Circulation.

[12]  D. Zipes Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: A Volkswagen or a Rolls Royce: how much will we pay to save a life? , 2001, Circulation.

[13]  M Gent,et al.  Cost-Effectiveness of the Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator: Results From the Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study (CIDS) , 2001, Circulation.

[14]  A. Hallstrom,et al.  Do baseline characteristics accurately discriminate between patients likely versus unlikely to benefit from implantable defibrillator therapy? Evaluation of the Canadian implantable defibrillator study implantable cardioverter defibrillatory efficacy score in the antiarrhythmics versus implantable d , 2001, American heart journal.

[15]  M. Keller,et al.  A comparison of antiarrhythmic-drug therapy with implantable defibrillators in patients resuscitated from near-fatal ventricular arrhythmias. , 1997, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  G. Sanders,et al.  Cost-Effectiveness of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators Relative to Amiodarone for Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death , 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[17]  N Engl,et al.  Improved survival with an implanted defibrillator in patients with coronary disease at high risk for ventricular arrhythmia. , 1997, Circulation.

[18]  S. Finkler The distinction between cost and charges. , 1982, Annals of internal medicine.

[19]  B. Littenberg,et al.  Screening for hypertension. , 1970, Lancet.

[20]  A J Moss,et al.  Implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy: the sickest patients benefit the most. , 2000, Circulation.

[21]  A. J. Hogan,et al.  Cost-effectiveness analysis in heart disease, Part III: Ischemia, congestive heart failure, and arrhythmias. , 1995, Progress in cardiovascular diseases.

[22]  C. Donaldson The (near) equivalence of cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis: fact or fallacy , 1999 .

[23]  E. Feuer,et al.  Estimating medical costs from incomplete follow-up data. , 1997, Biometrics.

[24]  A H Briggs,et al.  Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. , 1997, Health economics.