Cost advantage of dual-chamber versus single-chamber cardioverter- defibrillator implantation

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)850-857
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of the American College of Cardiology
Volume46
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 6 2005

Fingerprint

Defibrillators
Implantable Defibrillators
Costs and Cost Analysis
Equipment and Supplies
Decision Support Techniques
Bradycardia
Patient Selection
Cardiac Arrhythmias

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)

Cite this

Cost advantage of dual-chamber versus single-chamber cardioverter- defibrillator implantation. / Goldberger, Zachary; Elbel, Brian D.; McPherson, Craig A.; Paltiel, A. David; Lampert, Rachel.

In: Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Vol. 46, No. 5, 06.09.2005, p. 850-857.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Goldberger, Zachary ; Elbel, Brian D. ; McPherson, Craig A. ; Paltiel, A. David ; Lampert, Rachel. / Cost advantage of dual-chamber versus single-chamber cardioverter- defibrillator implantation. In: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2005 ; Vol. 46, No. 5. pp. 850-857.
@article{29b0e3b0eb604140bfd9f8eee8f2653e,
title = "Cost advantage of dual-chamber versus single-chamber cardioverter- defibrillator implantation",
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.",
author = "Zachary Goldberger and Elbel, {Brian D.} and McPherson, {Craig A.} and Paltiel, {A. David} and Rachel Lampert",
year = "2005",
month = "9",
day = "6",
doi = "10.1016/j.jacc.2005.05.061",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "46",
pages = "850--857",
journal = "Journal of the American College of Cardiology",
issn = "0735-1097",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost advantage of dual-chamber versus single-chamber cardioverter- defibrillator implantation

AU - Goldberger, Zachary

AU - Elbel, Brian D.

AU - McPherson, Craig A.

AU - Paltiel, A. David

AU - Lampert, Rachel

PY - 2005/9/6

Y1 - 2005/9/6

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=24044441043&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=24044441043&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jacc.2005.05.061

DO - 10.1016/j.jacc.2005.05.061

M3 - Article

VL - 46

SP - 850

EP - 857

JO - Journal of the American College of Cardiology

JF - Journal of the American College of Cardiology

SN - 0735-1097

IS - 5

ER -