Advertisement

Secondary Prevention of Sudden Death in Post-Infarction Patients: When is ICD Implantation Really Cost-Effective?

  • S. R. Raj
  • R. S. Sheldon
Conference paper

Abstract

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) use has grown rapidly due to a combination of factors, including improvements in device technology, evidence from randomized clinical trials and the intuitive appeal of an “electrical life insurance policy”. Unfortunately, the ICD is quite expensive. This has led to recent efforts to determine whether and when ICD implantation is cost-effective from a societal perspective, as opposed to a patient perspective. We will briefly review the clinical trial evidence for cost-effectiveness in the secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death with an ICD in a post-myocardial infarction population.

Keywords

Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Sudden Cardiac Death Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Antiarrhythmic Drug Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    The Antiarrhythmics versus Implantable Defibrillators Investigators (1997) A comparison of antiarrhythmic-drug therapy with implantable defibrillators in patients resuscitated from near-fatal ventricular arrhythmias. N Engl J Med 337:1576–1583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Connolly SJ, Gent M, Roberts RS et al (2000) Canadian implantable defibrillator study: a randomized trial of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator against amio-darone. Circulation 101:1297–1302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kuck KH, Cappato R, Siebels J, Ruppel R (2000) Randomized comparison of antiarrhythmic drug therapy with implantable defibrillators in patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest: the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH). Circulation 102:748–754PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Connolly SJ, Hallstrom AP, Cappato R et al (2000) Meta-analysis of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator secondary prevention trials. AVID, CASH and CIDS studies. Eur Heart J 21:2071–2078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    O’Brien BJ (2000) Chapter 3. Cost effectiveness of ICD therapy: a review of published evidence. Can J Cardiol 16:1307–1312Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldman L, Gordon DJ, Rifkind BM et al (1992) Cost and health implications of cholesterol lowering. Circulation 85:1960–1968PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kuppermann M, Luce BR, McGovern B et al (1990) An analysis of the cost effectiveness of the implantable defibrillator. Circulation 81:91–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Larsen GC, Manolis AS, Sonnenberg FA et al (1992) Cost-effectiveness of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: effect of improved battery life and comparison with amiodarone therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol 19:1323–1334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kupersmith J, Hogan A, Guerrero P et al (1995) Evaluating and improving the cost-effectiveness of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Am Heart J 130:507–515PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Owens DK, Sanders GD, Harris RA et al (1997) Cost-effectiveness of implantable car-dioverter defibrillators relative to amiodarone for prevention of sudden cardiac death. Ann Intern Med 126:1–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Larsen G, Hallstrom A, McAnulty J et al (2002) Cost-effectiveness of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator versus antiarrhythmic drugs in survivors of serious ventricular tachyarrhythmias: results of the AVID economic analysis substudy. Circulation 105:2049–2057PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    O’Brien BJ, Connolly SJ, Goeree R et al (2001) Cost-effectiveness of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: results from the Canadian implantable defibrillator study (CIDS). Circulation 103:1416–1421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Domanski MJ, Sakseena S, Epstein AE et al (1999) 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. J Am Coll Cardiol 34:1090–1095PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sheldon R, Connolly S, Krahn A et al (2000) Identification of patients most likely to benefit from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy: the Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study. Circulation 101:1660–1664PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Exner DV, Sheldon RS, Pinski SL et al (2001) 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 defibrillators trial. Am Heart J 141:99–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sheldon R, O’Brien BJ, Blackhouse G et al (2001) Effect of clinical risk stratification on cost-effectiveness of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: the Canadian implantable defibrillator study. Circulation? 104:1622–1626PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. R. Raj
    • 1
  • R. S. Sheldon
    • 2
  1. 1.Departments of Medicine and PharmacologyVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA
  2. 2.Cardiovascular Research GroupUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations