RESUMO
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) are a cost-effective alternative for secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death, but their efficiency in primary prevention, especially among patients with nonischemic heart disease, is still uncertain. METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of ICD plus conventional medical treatment (CMT) vs CMT for primary prevention of cardiac arrhythmias from the perspective of the national health service. We simulated the course of the disease by using Markov models in patients with ischemic and nonischemic heart disease. The parameters of the model were based on the results obtained from a meta-analysis of clinical trials published between 1996 and 2018 comparing ICD plus CMT vs CMT, the safety results of the DANISH trial, and analysis of real-world clinical practice in a tertiary hospital. RESULTS: We estimated that ICD reduced the likelihood of all-cause death in patients with ischemic heart disease (HR, 0.70; 95%CI, 0.58-0.85) and in those with nonischemic heart disease (HR, 0.79; 95%CI, 0.66-0.96). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) estimated with probabilistic analysis was 19 171/quality adjusted life year (QALY) in patients with ischemic heart disease and 31 084/QALY in those with nonischemic dilated myocardiopathy overall and 23 230/QALY in patients younger than 68 years. CONCLUSIONS: The efficiency of single-lead ICD systems has improved in the last decade, and these devices are cost-effective in patients with ischemic and nonischemic left ventricular dysfunction younger than 68 years, assuming willingness to pay as 25 000/QALY. For older nonischemic patients, the ICER was around 30 000/QALY.
