TY - JOUR
T1 - Cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter defibrillators relative to amiodarone for prevention of sudden cardiac death
AU - Owens, Douglas K.
AU - Sanders, Gillian D.
AU - Harris, Ryan A.
AU - McDonald, Kathryn M.
AU - Heidenreich, Paul A.
AU - Dembitzer, Anne D.
AU - Hlatky, Mark A.
PY - 1997
Y1 - 1997
N2 - Background: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are remarkably effective in terminating ventricular arrhythmias, but they are expensive and the extent to which they extend life is unknown. The marginal cost-effectiveness of ICDs relative to amiodarone has not been clearly established. Objective: To compare the cost-effectiveness of a third- generation implantable ICD with that of empirical amiodarone treatment for preventing sudden cardiac death in patients at high or intermediate risk. Design: A Markov model was used to evaluate health and economic outcomes of patients who received an ICD, amiodarone, or a sequential regimen that reserved ICD for patients who had an arrhythmia during amiodarone treatment. Measurements: Life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years gained, costs, and marginal cost-effectiveness. Results: For the base-case analysis, it was assumed that treatment with an ICD would reduce the total mortality rate by 20% to 40% at 1 year compared with amiodarone and that the ICD generator would be replaced every 4 years. In high-risk patients, if an ICD reduces total mortality by 20%, patients who receive an ICD live for 4.18 quality- adjusted life-years and have a lifetime expenditure of $88 400. Patients receiving amiodarone live for 3.68 quality-adjusted life-years and have a lifetime expenditure of $51 000. Marginal cost-effectiveness of an ICD relative to amiodarone is $74 400 per quality-adjusted life-year saved. If an ICD reduces mortality by 40%, the cost-effectiveness of ICD use is $37 300 per quality-adjusted life-year saved. Both choice of therapy (an ICD or amiodarone) and the cost-effectiveness ratio are sensitive to assumptions about quality of life. Conclusions: Use of an ICD will cost more than $50 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained unless it reduces all-cause mortality by 30% or more relative to amiodarone. Current evidence does not definitively support or exclude a benefit of this magnitude, but ongoing randomized trials have sufficient statistical power to do so.
AB - Background: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are remarkably effective in terminating ventricular arrhythmias, but they are expensive and the extent to which they extend life is unknown. The marginal cost-effectiveness of ICDs relative to amiodarone has not been clearly established. Objective: To compare the cost-effectiveness of a third- generation implantable ICD with that of empirical amiodarone treatment for preventing sudden cardiac death in patients at high or intermediate risk. Design: A Markov model was used to evaluate health and economic outcomes of patients who received an ICD, amiodarone, or a sequential regimen that reserved ICD for patients who had an arrhythmia during amiodarone treatment. Measurements: Life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years gained, costs, and marginal cost-effectiveness. Results: For the base-case analysis, it was assumed that treatment with an ICD would reduce the total mortality rate by 20% to 40% at 1 year compared with amiodarone and that the ICD generator would be replaced every 4 years. In high-risk patients, if an ICD reduces total mortality by 20%, patients who receive an ICD live for 4.18 quality- adjusted life-years and have a lifetime expenditure of $88 400. Patients receiving amiodarone live for 3.68 quality-adjusted life-years and have a lifetime expenditure of $51 000. Marginal cost-effectiveness of an ICD relative to amiodarone is $74 400 per quality-adjusted life-year saved. If an ICD reduces mortality by 40%, the cost-effectiveness of ICD use is $37 300 per quality-adjusted life-year saved. Both choice of therapy (an ICD or amiodarone) and the cost-effectiveness ratio are sensitive to assumptions about quality of life. Conclusions: Use of an ICD will cost more than $50 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained unless it reduces all-cause mortality by 30% or more relative to amiodarone. Current evidence does not definitively support or exclude a benefit of this magnitude, but ongoing randomized trials have sufficient statistical power to do so.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031028592&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031028592&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.7326/0003-4819-126-1-199701010-00001
DO - 10.7326/0003-4819-126-1-199701010-00001
M3 - Article
C2 - 8992917
AN - SCOPUS:0031028592
SN - 0003-4819
VL - 126
SP - 1
EP - 12
JO - Annals of internal medicine
JF - Annals of internal medicine
IS - 1
ER -