Report

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a systematic review

Authors: Bryant J, Brodin H, Loveman E, Payne E, Clegg A

Journal: Health Technology Assessment Volume: 9 Issue: 36

Publication date: September 2005

DOI: 10.3310/hta9360

Citation:

Bryant J, Brodin H, Loveman E, Payne E, Clegg A.The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2005;9(36)


Journal issues* can be purchased by completing the form.


The cost of reports varies according to number of pages and postage address. The minimum cost for a copy sent to a UK address is £30.00. We will contact you on receipt of your completed form to advise you of actual cost. If you have any queries, please contact nihredit@southampton.ac.uk.


*We regret that unfortunately we are unable to supply bound print copies of Health Technology Assessment published before issue 12:31. However, PDFs are available to print from the "Downloads" tab of the issue page.

Responses

No responses have been published. If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below.

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 2 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

Post your response

Surname

Forename

Middle Initial

Occupation / Job title

Affiliation / Employer

Email

Address

Other authors

For example, if you are responding as a team or group. Please ensure you include full names and separate these using commas

Statement of competing interests

We believe that readers should be aware of any competing interests (conflicts of interest).

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) define competing interests as including: financial relationships with industry (for example through employment, consultancies, stock, ownership, honoraria, and expert testimony), either directly or through immediate family; personal relationships; academic competition; and intellectual passion.

If yes, provide details below:

Enter response title

Enter response message

Enter CAPTCHA

Security key

Regenerate security key

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions

  • Abstract

Abstract

Objectives

To consider the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for arrhythmias.

Data sources

Electronic databases. Manufacturer submissions.

Review methods

A systematic review of the literature on clinical and cost-effectiveness was undertaken. The quality of selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the Jadad criteria, and of selected systematic reviews using criteria developed by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Economic evaluations were quality assessed by their internal validity (i.e. the methods used) using a series of relevant questions, and external validity (i.e. generalisability of the economic study to the population of interest) by modified standard criteria. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ICDs for arrhythmias were synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of results of all included studies.

Results

Eight RCTs, two systematic reviews and a meta-analysis met the inclusion criteria of the review. The RCTs were of variable quality, with most trials having a Jadad quality score of 1/5 or 2/5, owing to the nature of comparing a device with drug therapy and the impossibility of double-blinding. The outcome measure of interest was mortality, which was reported as all-cause mortality in most trials and sudden cardiac death in some trials. Eleven economic evaluations of ICDs for arrhythmias were identified. None were shown to have high internal and external validity. One unpublished study relevant to the UK was identified. The evidence suggests that ICDs reduce mortality in patients with previous ventricular arrest or symptomatic sustained ventricular arrhythmias, in patients who have not had a previous sudden cardiac episode or previous ventricular arrhythmia but have reduced left ventricular function due to coronary artery disease with asymptomatic non-sustained ventricular arrhythmia and sustained tachycardia that could be induced electrophysiologically, and in some patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction (ejection fraction 30%) after myocardial infarction. QoL data are inconsistent but suggest that there is impaired QoL in patients who received numerous shocks from implanted devices. Studies show that ICDs improve survival compared with drug treatment, but with considerably increased cost. Incremental cost per life-year gained ranges from 27,000 US dollars to 213,543 Can dollars and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year from 71,700 US dollars to 558,000 US dollars in the published literature.

Conclusions

The use of ICDs in the UK is increasing, but the technology is still under-utilised compared with other developed countries. Extending the current indications to patients with prior myocardial infarction and depressed heart function would impact on costs and service provision. Further research is needed on the risk stratification of patients in whom ICDs are most likely to be clinically and cost-effective. An evaluation of shock frequency on QoL is also required.

Publication updates

If you would like to receive information on publications and the latest news, click below to sign up.