Cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death.

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.

Syncope in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: More Than Just an Obstruction Issue.

BACKGROUND: Severe aortic stenosis (AoS) is considered a primary cause of syncope. However, other mechanisms may be present in these patients and accurate diagnosis can have important clinical implications. The aim of this study is to assess the different etiologies of syncope in patients with severe AoS and the impact on prognosis of attaining a certain or highly probable diagnosis for the syncope. METHODS: Out of a cohort of 331 patients with AoS and syncope, 61 had severe AoS and were included in the study. Main cause of syncope and adverse cardiac events were assessed. RESULTS: In 40 patients (65.6%), we reached a certain or highly probable diagnosis of the main cause of the syncope. AoS was considered the primary cause of the syncope in only 7 patients (17.5% of the patients with known etiology). Atrioventricular block (14 patients, 35.0%) and vasovagal syncope (6 patients, 15.0%) were the most frequently diagnosed causes. The presence of a known cause for syncope during the admission was not associated with a lower incidence of recurrence during follow-up (hazard ratio [HR] 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20-2.40). Syncope of unknown etiology was independently associated with greater mortality during 1-year follow-up (HR 5.4, 95% CI 1.3-21.6) and 3-year follow-up (HR 3.5, 95% CI 1.2-10.3). CONCLUSIONS: In a high proportion of patients with severe AoS admitted for syncope, the valvulopathy was not the main cause of the syncope. Syncope in two-thirds of this population was caused by either bradyarrhythmia or reflex causes. Syncope of unknown cause was associated with increased short- and medium-term mortality, independently from treatment of the valve disease. An exhaustive work-up should be conducted to determine the main cause for syncope.