• Mustafa M Ahmed, Piaopiao Li, Lauren E Meece, Jiang Bian, and Hui Shao.
• Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
• Curr Med Res Opin. 2021 Sep 1; 37 (9): 1501-1505.

BackgroundLeft ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation improves outcomes in advanced heart failure, however, the optimal frequency of outpatient assessments to improve cost-effectiveness and potentially avert readmissions is unclear.MethodsTo test if varying the frequency of follow-up after LVAD implantation reduces readmissions and improves cost-effectiveness, a less intensive follow-up (LIFU) strategy with scheduled visits at 1 month and then every 6 months was compared to an intensive follow-up (IFU) group with scheduled visits at 1, 2, and 4 weeks, and then every 3 months post-implant. We developed a decision-tree model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different follow-up schedules at 3, 6, and 12-months. The readmission rates for LIFU and IFU, along with the associated costs, were estimated using data from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims Databases (2015-2018). A total of 349 patients were enrolled, with 193 and 156 in the IFU and LIFU groups.ResultsPatients with IFU were found to have a lower risk for readmission at 3 months (HR: 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.60-0.79), but this difference diminished overtime at 6 months (HR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.73-0.96) and 12 months (HR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.83-1.06). The incremental net benefit of IFU, when compared with LIFU, is greatest in the first 3 months and also diminishes over time (3 months: $19616, 6 months $9257, 12 months $717).ConclusionsAn initial IFU strategy, followed by a period of de-escalation at the 6-month post-implant mark in lower-risk patients, may be a more cost-effective strategy to provide follow-up care while not predisposing patients to a higher risk of readmission.

13 keywords...

hide…