Your browser doesn't support javascript.

Portal Regional da BVS

Informação e Conhecimento para a Saúde

Home > Pesquisa > ()
XML
Imprimir Exportar

Formato de exportação:

Exportar

Email
Adicionar mais destinatários
| |

A Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness of Long-Term Mechanical Circulatory Support.

Value Health; 19(4): 494-504, 2016 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27325342

BACKGROUND:

Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is an option for the treatment of medically intractable end-stage heart failure. MCS therapy, however, is resource intensive.

OBJECTIVE:

The purpose of this report was to systematically review the MCS cost-effectiveness literature as it pertains to the treatment of adult patients in end-stage heart failure.

METHODS:

We conducted a systematic search and narrative review of available cost- effectiveness and cost-utility analyses of MCS in adult patients with end-stage heart failure.

RESULTS:

Eleven studies analyzing the cost-effectiveness or cost-utility of MCS were identified. Seven studies focused on bridge to transplantation, three studies focused on destination therapy, and one study presented analyses of both strategies. Two articles evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the HeartMate II (Thoratec Corp., Pleasanton, CA). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios between MCS and medical management ranged between $85,025 and $200,166 for bridge to transplantation and between $87,622 and $1,257,946 for destination therapy (2012 Canadian dollars per quality-adjusted life-year). Sensitivity analyses indicated that improvements in survival and quality of life and reductions in device and initial hospital-stay costs may improve the cost-effectiveness of MCS.

CONCLUSIONS:

Current studies suggest that MCS is likely not cost-effective with reference to generally accepted or explicitly stated thresholds. Refined patient selection, complication rates, achieved quality of life, and device/surgical costs, however, could modify the cost-effectiveness of MCS.