RESUMO
BACKGROUND: We reviewed the literature pertaining to the cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy in the management of ventricular fibrillation and tachycardia. Discussed are the methodology, advantages, and limitations of economic-outcomes analyses as related to ICD therapy; the impact of new technology and physician practice patterns; and methodological recommendations for future studies. METHODS AND RESULTS: Articles published between 1990 and 1997 were screened for cost-effectiveness analyses of ICD versus antiarrhythmic drug therapy. Randomized clinical trials, prospective and retrospective studies, and economic models were included. These studies report incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from cost savings of $13 975 per life-year saved (LYS) to an incremental cost of $114 917 per LYS for ICD therapy. Differences were due to study type, cost-reporting methodology, ICD technology used, and length of follow-up. Assuming current technology and physician practice patterns, we find that ICD total therapy costs may break even in 1 to 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Recent literature suggests that ICDs are a cost-effective therapy for management of life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias. The advent of new technology and patient management practices should further improve the cost-effectiveness of ICD therapy. Future studies of ICD cost-effectiveness should address the implications of truncated follow-up periods and quality of life.
Assuntos
Desfibriladores Implantáveis/economia , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Cardiologia/tendências , Análise Custo-Benefício , Humanos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como AssuntoRESUMO
This article presents an analysis of the medical costs of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy in the treatment of patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). We compared the medical costs of SCS therapy with an alternative regimen of surgeries and other interventions. Externally powered (external) and fully internalized (internal) SCS systems were considered separately. Clinical management models of each of the therapy alternatives were derived from the clinical literature, retrospective data sets, expert opinion, and published diagnostic and therapy protocols. No value was placed on pain relief or improvements in the quality of life that successful SCS therapy can generate. We found that by reducing the demand for medical care by FBSS patients, SCS therapy can lower medical costs. On average, given current screening and efficacy rates, SCS therapy pays for itself within 5.5 years. For those patients for whom SCS therapy is clinically efficacious, the therapy pays for itself within 2.1 years.
Assuntos
Dor nas Costas/cirurgia , Dor nas Costas/terapia , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/economia , Medula Espinal/fisiopatologia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Humanos , Retratamento , Síndrome , Falha de TratamentoRESUMO
The estimated annual cost of medical management of chronic back pain is $25 billion. Such management is often ineffective and overly costly. Most physicians who have employed intrathecal pain therapy attest to its efficacy in the management of intractable chronic pain. However, few economic analyses are available to evaluate the cost effectiveness of different modalities and to aid in clinical decision making and third-party reimbursement policies. Current analyses tend to focus on short-term cost-benefit measurements and to ignore variables such as quality of life and patient functioning. This bias has impaired the ability of payers to make appropriate decisions regarding the safety, cost effectiveness, and efficacy of intrathecal pain therapy in noncancer patients. Clinical data demonstrate that for cancer patients whose expectancies exceed 3 months, the overall costs of intrathecal pain therapy may be less than those of tunneled epidural catheters or external infusion devices. In nonmalignant pain, intrathecal therapy appears to be cost effective compared to conventional medical management at 22 months. Further debate and fine tuning of these economic models from all perspectives are required.
Assuntos
Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapêutico , Dor/tratamento farmacológico , Analgésicos Opioides/economia , Controle de Custos , Humanos , Injeções Espinhais , Dor/economiaRESUMO
Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) are serious and costly complications of total hip and knee replacement surgery. The risk of these complications is significantly reduced by prophylaxis. Low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) are being used for this indication with increased frequency. The objective of this study was to assess the cost implications of LMWH for the prevention of symptomatic DVT and PE complications following total hip and knee replacement surgery. The study design was cost analysis based on utilization and the costs of medical resources for prophylaxis and treatment of DVT/PE. A retrospective hospital data set was used to assess symptomatic DVT/PE complication rates and medical resource utilization in patients receiving warfarin, other, and no prophylaxis. The results of a clinical trial were used to estimate relative reductions in risk of symptomatic DVT/PE due to prophylaxis with LMWH. The 7721 total hip and knee replacement patients analyzed were admitted in 1992 in 57 acute-care non-federal hospitals. The measurements were of incremental costs or charges expected to be saved as a result of using LMWH prophylaxis instead of warfarin prophylaxis. Prophylaxis using LMWH rather than warfarin reduces the expected total costs (charges) of treatment by $50 ($193), not including the pharmaceutical costs associated with prophylaxis. The cost reduction in favor of LMWH was sensitive to several factors, including blood monitoring costs and DVT/PE complication rates. Where a reduction of one day in hospital stay could be realized from LMWH's early onset of action, the cost (charges) reduction increased to $226 ($624). In conclusion, LMWH has the potential to offer several short- and long-term cost advantages compared with warfarin, mostly due to lower test costs associated with prophylaxis and reduced complication rates.