Clinical and cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy for advanced heart failure: systematic review and economic evaluation.
Author
Beese, SophieAvşar, Tuba S
Price, Malcolm
Quinn, David
Lim, Hoong S
Dretzke, Janine
Ogwulu, Chidubem O
Barton, Pelham
Jackson, Louise
Moore, David
Publication date
2024-08-25Subject
Cardiology
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
Background: Selected patients with advanced heart failure ineligible for heart transplantation could benefit from left ventricular assist device therapy as 'destination therapy'. There is evidence of the efficacy of destination therapy; however, it is not currently commissioned within the United Kingdom National Health Service due to the lack of economic evidence. Objective: What is the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a left ventricular assist device compared to medical management for patients with advanced heart failure ineligible for heart transplantation (destination therapy)? Methods: A systematic review of evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy was undertaken including, where feasible, a network meta-analysis to provide an indirect estimate of the relative effectiveness of currently available left ventricular assist devices compared to medical management. For the systematic reviews, data sources searched (up to 11 January 2022) were Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE via Ovid for primary studies, and Epistemonikos and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for relevant systematic reviews. Trial registers were also searched, along with data and reports from intervention-specific registries. Economic studies were identified in EconLit, CEA registry and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). The searches were supplemented by checking reference lists of included studies. An economic model (Markov) was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices compared to medical management from the United Kingdom National Health Service/personal social service perspective. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore uncertainties. Where possible, all analyses focused on the only currently available left ventricular assist device (HeartMate 3TM, Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA) in the United Kingdom. Results: The clinical effectiveness review included 134 studies (240 articles). There were no studies directly comparing HeartMate 3 and medical management (a randomised trial is ongoing). The currently available left ventricular assist device improves patient survival and reduces stroke rates and complications compared to earlier devices and relative to medical management. For example, survival at 24 months is 77% with the HeartMate 3 device compared to 59% with the HeartMate II (MOMENTUM 3 trial). An indirect comparison demonstrated a reduction in mortality compared to medical management [relative risk of death 0.25 (95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.47); 24 months; this study]. The cost-effectiveness review included 5 cost analyses and 14 economic evaluations covering different generations of devices and with different perspectives. The reported incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained compared to medical management were lower for later generations of devices [as low as £46,207 (2019 prices; United Kingdom perspective; time horizon at least 5 years)]. The economic evaluation used different approaches to obtain the relative effects of current left ventricular assist devices compared to medical management from the United Kingdom National Health Service/personal social service perspective. All gave similar incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £53,496-58,244 per quality-adjusted life-year gained - lifetime horizon. Model outputs were sensitive to parameter estimates relating to medical management. The findings did not materially differ on exploratory subgroup analyses based on the severity of heart failure. Limitations: There was no direct evidence comparing the clinical effectiveness of HeartMate 3 to medical management. Indirect comparisons made were based on limited data from heterogeneous studies regarding the severity of heart failure (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support score distribution) and possible for survival only. Furthermore, the cost of medical management of advanced heart failure in the United Kingdom is not clear. Conclusions: Using cost-effectiveness criteria applied in the United Kingdom, left ventricular assist devices compared to medical management for patients with advanced heart failure ineligible for heart transplant may not be cost-effective. When available, data from the ongoing evaluation of HeartMate 3 compared to medical management can be used to update cost-effectiveness estimates. An audit of the costs of medical management in the United Kingdom is required to further decrease uncertainty in the economic evaluation.Citation
Ahmed R, Ahsan A, Ahmed M, Dragon M, Hernñandez Caballero RR, Tabassum S, Jain H, Ullah MZS, Dey D, Ramphul K, Collins P, Chahal A, Kouranos V, Paray NB, Sharma R. Outcomes of definite vs probable/presumed cardiac sarcoidosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Curr Probl Cardiol. 2024 Aug 25:102820. doi: 10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2024.102820. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 39191361.Type
ArticleDOI
10.3310/MLFA4009PMID
39189844Journal
Health Technology AssessmentPublisher
Elsevierae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.3310/MLFA4009