The cost-effectiveness of a new percutaneous ventricular assist device for high-risk PCI patients: Mid-stage evaluation from the European perspective

Journal of Medical Economics

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 381-390

  Roos, Johanna B ^a   Doshi, Sagar N ^b   Konorza, Thomas ^c   Palacios, Igor ^d   Schreiber, Ted ^e   Borisenko, Oleg V ^a   Henriques, Jose P S ^f  

^a Synergus AB   (Sweden)

^b QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ESSEN   (Germany)

^d MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^e DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^f ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness; Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; High risk PCI; Intra aortic balloon pump; Percutaneous ventricular assist device

Indexed keywords

ADVERSE OUTCOME; ARTICLE; BLEEDING; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CLINICAL EVALUATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DEVICE SAFETY; DISEASE SPECIFIC SURVIVAL; EXTRACORPOREAL OXYGENATION; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEART FAILURE; HEART INFARCTION; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; INTRAAORTIC BALLOON PUMP; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; RECURRENT DISEASE; RISK ASSESSMENT; VENTRICULAR ASSIST DEVICE;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EUROPE; HEALTH RESOURCES; HEART-ASSIST DEVICES; HUMANS; INTRA-AORTIC BALLOON PUMPING; MARKOV CHAINS; MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 84873925981     PISSN: 13696998     EISSN: 1941837X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3111/13696998.2012.762004     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Moschovitis A, Cook S, Meier B. Percutaneous coronary interventions in Europe. Euro Intervention 2010;6:189-94
2. Lindholm MG, Køber L, Boesgaard S, et al. Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction; prognostic impact of early and late shock development. Eur Heart J 2003;24:258-65
3. Jacobson KM, Hall Long K, McMurtry EK, et al. The economic burden of complications during percutaneous coronary intervention. Qual Saf Health Care 2007;16:154-9
4. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, et al. Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 2012;367:1287-96
5. Curtis JP, Rathore SS, Wang Y, et al. Use and effectiveness of intra-aortic balloon pumps among patients undergoing high risk percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2012;5:21-30
6. Patel MR, Smalling RW, Thiele H, et al. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation and infarct size in patients with acute anterior myocardial infarction without shock. The CRISP AMI randomized trial. JAMA 2011;306:1329-37
7. Perera D, Stables R, Thomas M, et al. Elective intra-aortic balloon counter-pulsation during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2010;304:867-74
8. Sjauw KD, Engström AE, Vis MM, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of intra aortic balloon pump therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: should we change the guidelines? Eur Heart J 2009;30:459-68
9. Press-release: elective use of an intra-aortic balloon pump during high-risk PCI is associated with a 34 percent reduction in all-cause mortality, 2012. http://ca.maquet.com/file-assets/therapies-solutions/en/BCIS-1-Balloon- Pump-Assisted-Coronary-Intervention.pdf. Accessed December 10, 2012
10. O'Neill WW, Kleiman NS, Moses J, et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the PROTECT II study. Circulation 2012;126:1717-27
11. Maini B, Naidu SS, Mulukutla S, et al. Real-world use of the Impella 2.5 circulatory support system in complex high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the USpella registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2012;80:717-25
12. Alasnag MA, Gardi DO, Elder M, et al. Use of the Impella 2.5 for prophylactic circulatory support during elective high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2011;12:299-303
13. Iliodromitis KE, Kahlert P, Plicht B, et al. High-risk PCI in acute coronary syndromes with Impella LP 2.5 device support. Int J Cardiol 2011;153:59-63
14. Dixon SR, Henriques JPS, Mauri L, et al. A prospective feasibility trial investigating the use of the Impella 2.5 system in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (The PROTECT I Trial). Initial U.S. experience. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2009;2:91-6
15. Sjauw KD, Konorza T, Erbel R, et al. Supported high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with the Impella 2.5 device. The Europella Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;54:2430-4
16. Burzotta F, Paloscia L, Trani C, et al. Feasibility and long-term safety of elective Impella-assisted high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: a pilot two-centre study. J Cardiovasc Med 2008;9:1004-10
17. Henriques JP, Remmelink M, Baan Jr J, et al. Safety and feasibility of elective high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention procedures with left ventricular support of the Impella Recover LP 2.5. Am J Cardiol 2006;97:990-2
18. Cheung A. Temporary circulatory support: Impella. ASAIO 58th Annual Conference. San Francisco, CA. June 13-16, 2012
19. Vallejo-Torres L, Steuten LM, Buxton MJ, et al. Integrating health economics modeling in the product development cycle of medical devices: a Bayesian approach. Int J Technol Assass Health Care 2008;24:459-64
20. Sculpher M, Drummond M, Buxton M. The iterative use of economic evaluation as part of the process of health technology assessment. J Health Serv Res Policy 1997;2:26-30
21. The Federal Statistics Office, German Life Tables, 2008-2010. http://www.destatis.de/EN/FactsFigures/SocietyState/Population/Deaths/Deaths. html. Accessed November 24, 2012
22. Formica F, Avalli L, Martino A, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with a poly-methylpentene oxygenator (Quadrox D). The experience of a single Italian centre in adult patients with refractory cardiogenic shock. ASAIO J 2008;54:89-94
23. Smedira NG, Moazami N, Golding CM, et al. Clinical experience with 202 adults receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for cardiac failure: survival at five years. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2001;122:92-102
24. Ezekowitz JA, Kaul P, Bakal JA, et al. Declining in-hospital mortality and increasing heart failure incidence in elderly patients with first myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53:13-20
25. Witt BJ, Ballman KV, Brown Jr RD, et al. The incidence of stroke after myo-cardial infarction: a meta-analysis. Am J Med 2006;119:354 e1-9
26. Fokkema ML, van der Vleuten PA, Vlaar PJ, et al. Incidence, predictors, and outcome of reinfarction and stent thrombosis within one year after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2009;73:627-34
27. Adabag AS, Therneau TM, Gersh BJ, et al. Sudden death after myocardial infarction. JAMA 2008;300:2022-9
28. Wang Y, Lim LL, Heller RF, et al. A prediction model of 1-year mortality for acute ischemic stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003;84: 1006-11
29. Kolominsky-Rabas PL, Heuschmann PU, Marschall D, et al. Lifetime cost of ischemic stroke in Germany: results and national projections from a population-based stroke registry: the Erlangen Stroke Project. Stroke 2006;37:1179-83
30. Friedel H, Delges A, Clouth J, et al. Expenditures of the German statutory health insurance system for patients suffering from acute coronary syndromes and treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. Eur J Health Econ 2010;11:449-55
31. McMurray JJ, Andersson FL, Stewart S, et al. Resource utilization and costs in the Candesartan in Heart failure: assessment of reduction in mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme. Eur Heart J 2006;27:1447-58
32. Brüggenjürgen B, Rupprecht HJ, Willich SN, et al. Cost of atherothrombotic diseases-myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke and peripheral arterial occlusive disease-in Germany. J Public Health 2005;13:216-24
33. Dorman P, Dennis M, Sandercock P. Are the modified "simple questions" a valid and reliable measure of health related quality of life after stroke? United Kingdom Collaborators in the International Stroke Trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2000;69:487-93
34. Haacke C, Althaus A, Spottke A, et al. Long-term outcome after stroke: evaluating health-related quality of life using utility measurements. Stroke 2006;37:193-8
35. Bakhai A, Ferrieres J Iniguez A, et al. Clinical outcomes, resource use, and costs at 1 year in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing PCI: results from the multinational APTOR registry. J Interv Cardiol 2012;25:19-27
36. Calvert MJ, Freemantle N, Cleland JG. The impact of chronic heart failure on health-related quality of life data acquired in the baseline phase of the CARE-HF study. Eur J Heart Fail 2005;7:243-51
37. Sullivan PW, Slejko JF, Sculpher MJ, et al. Catalogue of EQ-5D scores for the United Kingdom. Med Decis Making 2011;31:800-4
38. Consumer Price Index. Federal Statistics Office; 2012. http://www.desta-tis.de/EN/FactsFigures/NationalEconomyEnvironment/Prices/ ConsumerPriceIndices/Tables-/ConsumerPricesCategories.html?cms-gtp= 151228-list%253-D1%2526151226-slot%253D2&https=1. Accessed November 24, 2012
39. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. General methods for the assessment of the relation of benefits to cost, 2009. Version 1.0-19/11/2009. http://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/source/Germany-Assessmentof theRelationofBenefitstoCosts-En.pdf. Accessed December 10, 2012
40. Maini BS, O'Neill W, Palacios I, et al. Cost-effectiveness and quality of life improvements: Impella® hemodynamic support compared with intra-aortic balloon pump in high-risk patients receiving PCI. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;59(Suppl S):E68
41. Maini BS, Buyantseva L, Popma J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of Impella® hemodynamic support in the emergent care patient group. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;59(Suppl S):E477
42. Song F, Loke YK, Walsh T, et al. Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews. BMJ 2009;338:b1147
43. Glenny AM, Altman DG, Song F, et al. Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. Health Technol Assess 2005;9:1-134, iii-iv
44. Neumann T, Biermann J, Erbel R, et al. Heart failure: the commonest reason for hospital admission in Germany: medical and economic perspectives. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2009;106:269-75
45. Lauten A, Engstrom AE, Jung C, et al. Percutaneous left ventricular support with the Impella 2.5 assist device in acute cardiogenic shock-Results of the Impella EUROSHOCK-Registry. Circ Heart Fail [Epub ahead of time]. doi:10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.112.967224
46. Seyfarth M, Sibbing D, Bauer I, et al. A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device versus intra-aortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock caused by myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52:1584-8