• J. Heart Lung Transplant. · May 2012

    Cost-effectiveness of the implantable HeartMate II left ventricular assist device for patients awaiting heart transplantation.

    • Santiago G Moreno, Nicola Novielli, and Nicola J Cooper.
    • Department of Evaluation of Innovation & New Technologies, Fundació Clínic, Barcelona, Spain. sgmoreno@clinic.ub.es
    • J. Heart Lung Transplant. 2012 May 1; 31 (5): 450-8.

    BackgroundLeft ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are being proposed as a life-saving therapeutic alternative to conventional medical management for people with end-stage heart failure awaiting transplantation. However, cost-effectiveness assessments of first-generation LVADs have not been encouraging. The cost-effectiveness of the enhanced second-generation LVAD HeartMate II (Thoratec, Pleasanton, CA) is estimated here.MethodsA probabilistic Markov model was developed to extrapolate survival, utility, and resource use over the total lifetime of a hypothetic cohort of patients with end-stage heart failure under the 2 competing therapeutic strategies, using the most robust and recently published evidence about their performance. Cost data are based on UK activity to consider reimbursement in the UK National Health Service setting.ResultsHeartMate II had a mean cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of £258,922 ($414,275). The sensitivity analysis showed that 2 factors mainly explain why HeartMate II is not a cost-effectiveness strategy as a bridge-to-transplant: (1) the survival of heart transplant candidates treated conventionally while on the waiting list has significantly improved in recent years, and (2) the high acquisition cost of the device, £94,200 ($150,720).ConclusionsAlthough HeartMate II LVAD implantation significantly increases survival compared with conventional medical management, it does not provide good value for the money spent according to established thresholds of cost-effectiveness in the UK. HeartMate II is unlikely to become cost-effective unless the additional survival gained by its use raises and/or the device is given free of charge. Therefore, its implantation to transplant candidates lacks justification in terms of cost-effectiveness.Copyright © 2012 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…