首页> 外文OA文献 >Implantable or External Defibrillators for Individuals at Increased Risk of Cardiac Arrest: Where Cost-Effectiveness Hits Fiscal Reality
【2h】

Implantable or External Defibrillators for Individuals at Increased Risk of Cardiac Arrest: Where Cost-Effectiveness Hits Fiscal Reality

机译:针对心脏骤停风险增加的个体的植入式或体外除颤器:成本效益达到财政现实的地方

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Objcetives:  Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are highly effective at preventing cardiac arrest, but their availability is limited by high cost. Automated external defibrillators (AEDs) are likely to be less effective, but also less expensive. We used decision analysis to evaluate the clinical and economic trade-offs of AEDs, ICDs, and emergency medical services equipped with defibrillators (EMS-D) for reducing cardiac arrest mortality. Methods:  A Markov model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of three strategies in adults meeting entry criteria for the MADIT II Trial: strategy 1, individuals experiencing cardiac arrest are treated by EMS-D; strategy 2, individuals experiencing cardiac arrest are treated with an in-home AED; and strategy 3, individuals receive a prophylactic ICD. The model was then used to quantify the aggregate societal benefit of these three strategies under the conditions of a constrained federal budget. Results:  Compared with EMS-D, in-home AEDs produced a gain of 0.05 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of $5225 ($104,500 per QALY), while ICDs produced a gain of 0.90 QALYs at a cost of $114,660 ($127,400 per QALY). For every $1 million spent on defibrillators, 1.7 additional QALYs are produced by purchasing AEDs (9.6 QALYs/$million) instead of ICDs (7.9 QALYs/$million). Results were most sensitive to defibrillator complication rates and effectiveness, defibrillator cost, and adults’ risk of cardiac arrest. Conclusions:  Both AEDs and ICDs reduce cardiac arrest mortality, but AEDs are significantly less expensive and less effective. If financial constraints were to lead to rationing of defibrillators, it might be preferable to provide more people with a less effective and less expensive intervention (in-home AEDs) instead of providing fewer people with a more effective and more costly intervention (ICDs).
机译:目的:植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)在预防心脏骤停方面非常有效,但是其可用性受到高成本的限制。自动体外除颤器(AED)可能效率较低,但价格也较便宜。我们使用决策分析来评估AED,ICD和配备除颤器(EMS-D)的紧急医疗服务在临床和经济上的权衡,以降低心脏骤停的死亡率。方法:Mar建立了马尔可夫模型,比较了满足MADIT II试验入围标准的成年人的三种策略的成本-效果:策略1,经历心脏骤停的个体接受EMS-D治疗;策略2,发生心搏停止的个体接受家庭AED治疗;策略3,个人接受预防性ICD。然后,在联邦预算有限的情况下,使用该模型来量化这三种策略的总体社会效益。结果:与EMS-D相比,家用自动体外除颤器产生了0.05质量调整生命年(QALYs),增量成本为5225美元(每个QALY为104,500美元),而ICD则产生了0.90 QALYs收益,成本为$ 114,660(每QALY $ 127,400)。购买除颤器的每100万美元中,通过购买AED(9.6 QALY /百万美元)而不是ICD(7.9 QALY /百万美元)会产生1.7个QALY。结果对除颤器并发症发生率和有效性,除颤器成本以及成年人发生心脏骤停的风险最敏感。结论:A AED和ICD均可降低心脏骤停死亡率,但AED的价格便宜且疗效较差。如果经济拮据导致对除颤器进行配给,则可能更希望为更多的人提供更有效,更便宜的干预措施(家庭AED),而不是为更少的人提供更有效,更昂贵的干预措施(ICD)。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号