Advertisement

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 35–46 | Cite as

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Left Ventricular Assist Devices: Issues and Challenges

  • Jordana K. SchmierEmail author
  • Jasmine D. Patel
  • Megan J. Leonhard
  • Prem A. Midha
Systematic Review

Abstract

Background

Advanced heart failure (HF) can be treated conservatively or aggressively, with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and heart transplant (HT) being the most aggressive strategies.

Objective

The goal of this review was to identify, describe, critique and summarize published cost-effectiveness analyses on LVADs for adults with HF.

Methods

We conducted a literature search using PubMed and ProQuest DIALOG databases to identify English-language publications from 2006 to 2017 describing cost-effectiveness analyses of LVADs and reviewed them against inclusion criteria. Those that met criteria were obtained for full-text review and abstracted if they continued to meet study requirements.

Results

A total of 12 cost-effectiveness studies (13 articles) were identified, all of which described models; they were almost evenly split between those examining LVADs as destination therapy (DT) or as bridge to transplant (BTT). Studies were Markov or semi-Markov models with one- or three-month cycles that followed patients until death. Inputs came from a variety of sources, with the REMATCH trial and INTERMACS registry common clinical data sources, although some publications also used data from studies at their own institutions. Costs were derived from standard sources in many studies but from individual hospital data in some. Inputs for health utilities, which were used in 11 of 12 studies, were generally derived from two studies. None of the studies reported a societal perspective, that is, included non-medical costs such as caregiving.

Conclusions

No study found LVADs to be cost effective for DT or BTT with base case assumptions, although incremental cost-effectiveness ratios met thresholds for cost effectiveness in some probabilistic analyses. With constant improvements in LVADs and expanding indications, understanding and re-evaluating the cost effectiveness of their use will be critical to making treatment decisions.

Notes

Data availability

All of the publications cited in this literature review are available to the public. Some are available as open access (freely available) documents, while some must be purchased.

Author contributions

All authors (JS, ML, JP, and PM) were involved with the design of the search strategy. JS and ML reviewed search results in detail to refine terms. JS completed the initial abstraction; ML provided QC. JP and PM provided insight on interpretation and organization of the text based on clinical knowledge. JS outlined the manuscript and developed a first draft of the Methods and Results sections and paragraphs on limitations; JP and PM drafted the Introduction and clinically-focused sections of the Conclusions. ML provided a critical review and revisions on the entire manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final submission.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

No funding was received for this analysis.

Conflict of interest

The authors (JS, ML, JP, and PM) report no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

40258_2018_439_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (18 kb)
Electronic Supplementary Material A. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting (CHEERS) Checklist for Included Articles (XLSX 18 kb)
40258_2018_439_MOESM2_ESM.docx (38 kb)
Electronic Supplementary Material B. Characteristics of Included Articles (DOCX 38 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Benjamin EJ, Virani SS, Callaway CW, Chang AR, Cheng S, Chiuve SE, et al. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2018 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2018;137(12):e67–e492.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nieminen MS, Dickstein K, Fonseca C, Serrano JM, Parissis J, Fedele F, et al. The patient perspective: Quality of life in advanced heart failure with frequent hospitalisations. Int J Cardiol. 2015;15(191):256–64.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Swetz KM, Kamal AH, Matlock DD, Dose AM, Borkenhagen LS, Kimeu AK, et al. Preparedness planning before mechanical circulatory support: a “how-to” guide for palliative medicine clinicians. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2014;47(5):926-35.e6.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heidenreich PA, Albert NM, Allen LA, Bluemke DA, Butler J, Fonarow GC, et al. Forecasting the impact of heart failure in the United States: a policy statement from the American Heart Association. Circ Heart Fail. 2013;6(3):606–19.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    McIlvennan CK, Jones J, Allen LA, Lindenfeld J, Swetz KM, Nowels C, et al. Decision-making for destination therapy left ventricular assist devices: implications for caregivers. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015;8(2):172–8.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Metzger M, Song MK, Devane-Johnson S. LVAD patients’ and surrogates’ perspectives on SPIRIT-HF: an advance care planning discussion. Heart Lung. 2016;45(4):305–10.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bruce CR, Minard CG, Wilhelms LA, Abraham M, Amione-Guerra J, Pham L, et al. Caregivers of patients with left ventricular assist devices: possible impacts on patients’ mortality and interagency registry for mechanically assisted circulatory support-defined morbidity events. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2017;10(1):e002879.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCUITOUTCOMES.116.002879.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kraai IH, Vermeulen KM, Luttik ML, Hoekstra T, Jaarsma T, Hillege HL. Preferences of heart failure patients in daily clinical practice: quality of life or longevity? Eur J Heart Fail. 2013;15(10):1113–21.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stewart GC, Givertz MM. Mechanical circulatory support for advanced heart failure: patients and technology in evolution. Circulation. 2012;125(10):1304–15.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(5):361–7.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clarke A, Pulikottil-Jacob R, Connock M, Suri G, Kandala NB, Maheswaran H, et al. Cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) for patients with advanced heart failure: analysis of the British NHS bridge to transplant (BTT) program. Int J Cardiol. 2014;171(3):338–45.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sutcliffe P, Connock M, Pulikottil-Jacob R, Kandala NB, Suri G, Gurung T, et al. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of second- and third-generation left ventricular assist devices as either bridge to transplant or alternative to transplant for adults eligible for heart transplantation: systematic review and cost-effectiveness model. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17(53):1–499, v–vi.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Alba AC, Alba LF, Delgado DH, Rao V, Ross HJ, Goeree R. Cost-effectiveness of ventricular assist device therapy as a bridge to transplantation compared with nonbridged cardiac recipients. Circulation. 2013;127(24):2424–35.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sharples LD, Dyer M, Cafferty F, Demiris N, Freeman C, Banner NR, et al. Cost-effectiveness of ventricular assist device use in the United Kingdom: results from the evaluation of ventricular assist device programme in the UK (EVAD-UK). J Heart Lung Transpl. 2006;25(11):1336–43.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Long EF, Swain GW, Mangi AA. Comparative survival and cost-effectiveness of advanced therapies for end-stage heart failure. Circ Heart Fail. 2014;7(3):470–8.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moreno SG, Novielli N, Cooper NJ. Cost-effectiveness of the implantable HeartMate II left ventricular assist device for patients awaiting heart transplantation. J Heart Lung Transpl. 2012;31(5):450–8.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pulikottil-Jacob R, Suri G, Connock M, Kandala NB, Sutcliffe P, Maheswaran H, et al. Comparative cost-effectiveness of the HeartWare versus HeartMate II left ventricular assist devices used in the United Kingdom National Health Service bridge-to-transplant program for patients with heart failure. J Heart Lung Transpl. 2014;33(4):350–8.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Takura T, Kyo S, Ono M, Tominaga R, Miyagawa S, Tanoue Y, et al. Preliminary report on the cost effectiveness of ventricular assist devices. J Artif Organs. 2016;19(1):37–43.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baras Shreibati J, Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, Banerjee D, Owens DK, Hlatky MA. Cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices in ambulatory patients with advanced heart failure. JACC Heart Fail. 2017;5(2):110–9.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chew DS, Manns B, Miller RJH, Sharma N, Exner DV. Economic evaluation of left ventricular assist devices for patients with end stage heart failure who are ineligible for cardiac transplantation. Can J Cardiol. 2017;33(10):1283–91.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rogers JG, Bostic RR, Tong KB, Adamson R, Russo M, Slaughter MS. Cost-effectiveness analysis of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy. Circ Heart Fail. 2012;5(1):10–6.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Neyt M, Van den Bruel A, Smit Y, De Jonge N, Erasmus M, Van Dijk D, et al. Cost-effectiveness of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(3):254–60.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tadmouri A, Blomkvist J, Landais C, Seymour J, Azmoun A. Cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices for patients with end-stage heart failure: analysis of the French hospital discharge database. ESC Heart Fail. 2018;5(1):75–86.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gosev I, Kiernan MS, Eckman P, Soleimani B, Kilic A, Uriel N, et al. Long-term survival in patients receiving a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;105(3):696–701.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Miller LW, Pagani FD, Russell SD, John R, Boyle AJ, Aaronson KD, et al. Use of a continuous-flow device in patients awaiting heart transplantation. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(9):885–96.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rose EA, Gelijns AC, Moskowitz AJ, Heitjan DF, Stevenson LW, Dembitsky W, et al. Long-term use of a left ventricular assist device for end-stage heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(20):1435–43.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kirklin JK, Pagani FD, Kormos RL, Stevenson LW, Blume ED, Myers SL, et al. Eighth annual INTERMACS report: Special focus on framing the impact of adverse events. J Heart Lung Transpl. 2017;36(10):1080–6.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Weinstein MC. Updating cost-effectiveness–the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(9):796–7.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rorth R, Wong C, Kragholm K, Fosbol EL, Mogensen UM, Lamberts M, et al. Return to the workforce after first hospitalization for heart failure: a Danish nationwide cohort study. Circulation. 2016;134(14):999–1009.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Strong AT, Sharma G, Tu C, Aminian A, Young JB, Rodriguez J, et al. A population-based study of early postoperative outcomes in patients with heart failure undergoing bariatric surgery. Obes Surg. 2018;28(8):2281–8.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Curtis GL, Newman JM, George J, Klika AK, Barsoum WK, Higuera CA. Perioperative outcomes and complications in patients with heart failure following total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2018;33(1):36–40.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gohler A, Geisler BP, Manne JM, Kosiborod M, Zhang Z, Weintraub WS, et al. Utility estimates for decision-analytic modeling in chronic heart failure–health states based on New York Heart Association classes and number of rehospitalizations. Value Health. 2009;12(1):185–7.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Moskowitz AJ, Weinberg AD, Oz MC, Williams DL. Quality of life with an implanted left ventricular assist device. Ann Thorac Surg. 1997;64(6):1764–9.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kularatna S, Byrnes J, Chan YK, Carrington MJ, Stewart S, Scuffham PA. Comparison of contemporaneous responses for EQ-5D-3L and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure; a case for disease specific multiattribute utility instrument in cardiovascular conditions. Int J Cardiol. 2017;15(227):172–6.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kularatna S, Byrnes J, Chan YK, Ski CF, Carrington M, Thompson D, et al. Comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and the SF-6D (SF-12) contemporaneous utility scores in patients with cardiovascular disease. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(12):3399–408.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Anderson JL, Heidenreich PA, Barnett PG, Creager MA, Fonarow GC, Gibbons RJ, et al. ACC/AHA statement on cost/value methodology in clinical practice guidelines and performance measures: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures and Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(21):2304–22.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Anderson JL, Heidenreich PA, Barnett PG, Creager MA, Fonarow GC, Gibbons RJ, et al. ACC/AHA statement on cost/value methodology in clinical practice guidelines and performance measures: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures and Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2014;129(22):2329–45.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bertram MY, Lauer JA, De Joncheere K, Edejer T, Hutubessy R, Kieny MP, et al. Cost-effectiveness thresholds: pros and cons. Bull World Health Organ. 2016;94(12):925–30.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Briasoulis A, Inampudi C, Akintoye E, Adegbala O, Alvarez P, Bhama J. Trends in utilization, mortality, major complications, and cost after left ventricular assist device implantation in the United States (2009 to 2014). Am J Cardiol. 2018;121(10):1214–8.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Adams EE, Wrightson ML. Quality of life with an LVAD: A misunderstood concept. Heart Lung. 2018;47(3):177–83.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bidwell JT, Lyons KS, Mudd JO, Grady KL, Gelow JM, Hiatt SO, et al. Patient and caregiver determinants of patient quality of life and caregiver strain in left ventricular assist device therapy. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7(6):e008080.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    John R, Pagani FD, Naka Y, Boyle A, Conte JV, Russell SD, et al. Post-cardiac transplant survival after support with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device: impact of duration of left ventricular assist device support and other variables. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;140(1):174–81.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Steffen RJ, Blackstone EH, Smedira NG, Soltesz EG, Hoercher KJ, Thuita L, et al. Optimal timing of heart transplant after HeartMate II left ventricular assist device implantation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;104(5):1569–76.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Quader M, LaPar DJ, Wolfe L, Ailawadi G, Rich J, Speir A, et al. Delayed sternal closure after continuous flow left ventricle assist device implantation: Analysis of risk factors and impact on outcomes and costs. ASAIO J. 2016;62(4):432–7.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yost G, Coyle L, Milkevitch K, Adair R, Tatooles A, Bhat G. Efficacy of inpatient rehabilitation after left ventricular assist device implantation. PM R. 2017;9(1):40–5.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mahfood Haddad T, Saurav A, Smer A, Azzouz MS, Akinapelli A, Williams MA, et al. Cardiac rehabilitation in patients with left ventricular assist device: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2017;37(6):390–6.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Blumer V, Mendirichaga R, Hernandez GA, Zablah G, Chaparro SV. Sex-specific outcome disparities in patients receiving continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis. ASAIO J. 2018;64(4):440–9.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Tse G, Gong M, Wong SH, Wu WKK, Bazoukis G, Lampropoulos K, et al. Frailty and clinical outcomes in advanced heart failure patients undergoing left ventricular assist device implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2008;19(3):255–61.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Husaini BA, Taira D, Norris K, Adhish SV, Moonis M, Levine R. Depression effects on hospital cost of heart failure patients in California: an analysis by ethnicity and gender. Indian J Community Med. 2018;43(1):49–52.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Nunes AJ, MacArthur RG, Kim D, Singh G, Buchholz H, Chatterley P, et al. A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of long-term mechanical circulatory support. Value Health. 2016;19(4):494–504.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Neyt M, Van den Bruel A, Smit Y, De Jonge N, Vlayen J. The cost-utility of left ventricular assist devices for end-stage heart failure patients ineligible for cardiac transplantation: a systematic review and critical appraisal of economic evaluations. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;3(5):439–49.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Messori A, Trippoli S, Bonacchi M, Sani G. Left ventricular assist device as destination therapy: application of the payment-by-results approach for the device reimbursement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;138(2):480–5.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Clegg AJ, Scott DA, Loveman E, Colquitt J, Hutchinson J, Royle P, et al. The clinical and cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices for end-stage heart failure: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9(45):1–132, iii–iv.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Clegg AJ, Scott DA, Loveman E, Colquitt J, Royle P, Bryant J. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy for people with end-stage heart failure: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(2):261–8.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Clegg AJ, Scott DA, Loveman E, Colquitt JL, Royle P, Bryant J. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices as a bridge to heart transplantation for people with end-stage heart failure: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Eur Heart J. 2006;27(24):2929–38.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hutchinson J, Scott DA, Clegg AJ, Loveman E, Royle P, Bryant J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of left ventricular-assist devices in end-stage heart failure. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Therapy. 2008;6(2):175–85.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Exponent IncAlexandriaUSA
  2. 2.Exponent IncPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Exponent, IncBellevueUSA

Personalised recommendations