Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-rnpqb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T20:51:33.604Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy for people with end-stage heart failure: A systematic review and economic evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2007

Andrew J. Clegg ,
David A. Scott ,
Emma Loveman ,
Jill Colquitt ,
Pam Royle  and
Jackie Bryant
Andrew J. Clegg
Affiliation:
University of Southampton
David A. Scott
Affiliation:
Oxford Outcomes Ltd.
Emma Loveman
Affiliation:
University of Southampton
Jill Colquitt
Affiliation:
University of Southampton
Pam Royle
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen
Jackie Bryant
Affiliation:
University of Southampton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The clinical and cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy for people with end-stage heart failure is assessed through a systematic review and economic evaluation.

Methods: Systematic review was performed of randomized controlled trials, quasiexperimental studies, case series, and case studies identified through searching eighteen electronic databases, bibliographies, and consultation with experts and manufacturers. Studies assessed survival, functional capacity, and quality of life. Cost-effectiveness was assessed through a 5-year decision analytic model to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for using left ventricular assist devices compared with usual care.

Results: Six studies met the inclusion criteria, showing that left ventricular assist devices appear beneficial, improving survival and quality of life. Adverse events are a serious concern. The economic evaluation showed that left ventricular assist devices had a cost per quality adjusted life year of £170,616. Sensitivity analysis showed that the cost-effectiveness was not sensitive to changes in costs or utility.

Conclusions: Although left ventricular assist devices appear clinically effective as destination therapy, it is unlikely they will be cost-effective unless costs decrease or the benefits of their use increase.

Keywords

Heart failureLeft ventricular assist devicesSystematic reviewEconomic evaluationHealth technology assessment
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , April 2007 , pp. 261 - 268
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness. No. 4. York: CRD; 2001.Google Scholar
2.Clegg, AJ, Scott, DA, Loveman, E et al. , The clinical and cost effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices for end stage heart failure: A systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2005; 9: 1–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Deng, MC. Orthotopic heart transplantation: Highlights and limitations. Surg Clin North Am. 2004; 84: 243–255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Dohmen, PM, Laube, H, de, Jonge K et al. , Mechanical circulatory support for one thousand days or more with the Novacor N100 left ventricular assist device. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1999; 117: 1029–1030.Google Scholar
5.Dohmen, PM, Laube, H, de, Jonge K, Konertz, W. A reliable test to detect impending pump failure during long-term support on the NovacorR N100 Left Ventricular Assist System. Tex Heart Inst J. 2001; 28: 139–141.Google ScholarPubMed
6.Drummond, MF, Sculpher, MJ, Torrance, GW, O'Brien, BJ, Stoddart, GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.El, Banayosy A, Arusoglu, L, Kizner, L et al. , Preliminary experience with the LionHeart left ventricular assist device in patients with end-stage heart failure. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003; 75: 1469–1475.Google Scholar
8.Frazier, OH, Myers, TJ, Gregoric, ID et al. , Initial clinical experience with the Jarvick 2000 implantable axial-flow left ventricular assist system. Circulation. 2002; 105: 2855–2860.Google Scholar
9.Frazier, OH, Myers, TJ, Jarvik, RK et al. , Research and development of an implantable, axial-flow left ventricular assist device: The Jarvik 2000 Heart. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001; 71: S125–S132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Frazier, OH, Myers, TJ, Westaby, S, Gregoric, ID. Use of the Jarvik 2000 left ventricular assist system as a bridge to heart transplantation or as destination therapy for patients with chronic heart failure. Ann Surg. 2003; 237: 631–637.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Hogness, JR, VanAntwerp, M. The artificial heart: Prototypes, policies and patients. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 1991.Google Scholar
12.Kherani, AR, Oz, MC. Ventricular assistance to bridge to transplantation. Surg Clin North Am. 2004; 84: 75–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Miner, AH, Garau, M, Fidan, D, Fischer, AJ. Comparing estimates of cost effectiveness submitted to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) by different organisations: Retrospective study. BMJ. 2005; 330: 65–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Park, SJ, Tector, A, Piccione, W et al. , Left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy: A new look at survival. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005; 129: 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Rose, EA, Gelijns, AC, Moskowitz, AJ et al. , Long-term mechanical left ventricular assistance for end-stage heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2001; 345: 1435–1443.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Seki, T, Kitamura, S, Kawachi, K et al. , Efficacy and limitation of a left ventricular assist system in a patient with dilated cardiomyopathy accompanying multi-organ dysfunction. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 1995; 36: 147–151.Google Scholar
17.Siegenthaler, MP, Martin, J, van, de Loo A et al. , Implantation of the permanent Jarvick 2000 left ventricular assist device. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002; 39: 1764–1772.Google Scholar
18.Souhami, RL, Moxham, J. Textbook of medicine. London: Churchill Livingstone; 1994.Google Scholar
19.Taggart, DP, Westaby, S. Surgical management of heart failure. BMJ. 1997; 314: 453–454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Thomas, BH, Ciliska, D, Dobbins, M, Micucci, S. A process for systematically reviewing the literature: Providing the research evidence for public health nursing interventions. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2004; 1: 176–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Waugh, NR. Grading of scientific evidence. Health Bull. 1999; 57: 53–63.Google ScholarPubMed
22.Westaby, S, Banning, AP, Saito, S et al. , Circulatory support for long-term treatment of heart failure: Experience with an intraventricular continuous flow pump. Circulation. 2002; 105: 2588–2591.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Westaby, S, Frazier, OH, Beyersdorf, F et al. , The Jarvick 2000 heart. Clinical validation of the intraventricular position. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2002; 22: 228–232.Google Scholar
24.Westaby, S, Jarvik, R, Freeland, A et al. , Postauricular percutaneous power delivery for permanent mechanical circulatory support. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002; 123: 977–983.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed