A Budget impact model to estimate the cost dynamics of treating high-risk heart failure patients with advanced percutaneous cardiac assist devices: The payer perspective

Journal of Managed Care Medicine

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 61-69

  Gregory, David ^a   Scotti, Dennis J ^b  

^a A division of ParenteBeard LLC   (United States)

^b FAIRLEIGH DICKINSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ASSISTED CIRCULATION; BUDGET IMPACT MODEL; CARDIOGENIC SHOCK; CARDIOVASCULAR MORTALITY; CARDIOVASCULAR RISK; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS GRAFT; EXTRACORPOREAL OXYGENATION; FEMALE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEART ASSIST DEVICE; HEART FAILURE; HEART MUSCLE REVASCULARIZATION; HEMODYNAMICS; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; LEFT VENTRICULAR ASSIST DEVICE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MORBIDITY; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; ST SEGMENT ELEVATION MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; TREND STUDY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84874997518     PISSN: 10941525     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd-Jones DM, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics- 2013 Update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2013 127:c6-c245.
2. Lloyd-Jones D, Adams RJ, Brown TM, et al. Executive summary: heart disease and stroke statistics-2010 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2010;121:948-954.
3. Jencks S, Williams MV, Coleman EA, et al. Rehospitalization among patient in the Medicare fee-for-service program. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:1418-1428.
4. Whellan DJ, Greiner MA, Schulman KA, et al. Costs of inpatient care among Medicare beneficiaries with heart failure, 2001 to 2004. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010;3:33-40.
5. Awad HH, Anderson FA Jr, Gore JM, et al. Cardiogenic shock complicating acute coronary syndromes: insights from the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events. Am Heart J 2012;163:963-971.
6. Goldberg RJ, Spencer FA, Gore JM, et al. Thirty-year trends (1975 to 2005) in the magnitude of, management of, and hospital death rates associated with cardiogenic shock in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a populationbased perspective. Circulation 2009;119:1211-1219.
7. Babaev A, Frederick PD, Pasta DJ, et al. Trends in management and outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. JAMA 2005;294:448-454.
8. Hochman JS, Buller CE, Sleeper LA, et al. Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction - Etiologies, management and outcome: a report from the SHOC K trial registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;36 (Suppl A):1063-1070.
9. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, et al. Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 2012;367:1287-1296.
10. Lamarche Y, Ignaszewski, A, Cheung A, et al. Comparative outcomes in cardiogenic shock patients managed with Impella microaxial pump or extracorporeal life support. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011;142:60-65.
11. Health Research Institute Report. US Opportunities in Acute Cardiac Assist. Report # 0514-1-US-1209-204. December 2009.
12. 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.
13. 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 CRIS P AMI randomized trial. JAMA 2011;306:1329-1337.
14. Perera D, Stables R, Thomas M, et al. Elective intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2010;304:867-874.
15. Sjauw KD, Engström AE, Vis MM, et al. A systematic review and metaanalysis of intra aortic balloon pump therapy in ST -elevation myocardial infarction: should we change the guidelines? Eur Heart J 2009;30:459-468.
16. O'Neill WW, Kliman KS, Moses J, et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5™ versus intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing non-emergent high risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the PROTECT II trial. Circulation 2012;126:1717-1727.
17. 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;80:717-725.
18. 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;54:2430-2434.