Long-term cost-utility analysis of remote monitoring of older patients with pacemakers: the PONIENTE study

Rafael Jesus Bautista-Mesa, Antonio Lopez-Villegas, Salvador Peiro, Daniel Catalan-Matamoros, Emilio Robles-Musso, Remedios Lopez-Liria, Cesar Leal-Costa, Rafael Jesus Bautista-Mesa, Antonio Lopez-Villegas, Salvador Peiro, Daniel Catalan-Matamoros, Emilio Robles-Musso, Remedios Lopez-Liria, Cesar Leal-Costa

Abstract

Background: Cost-effectiveness studies on pacemakers have increased in the last years. However the number of long-term cost-utility studies is limited. The objective of this study was to perform a cost-utility analysis comparing remote monitoring (RM) versus conventional monitoring (CM) in hospital of older patients with pacemakers, 5 years after implant.

Methods: Under a controlled, not randomized, nor masked clinical trial, 83 patients with pacemakers were initially selected. After five years of follow-up, a total of 55 patients (CM = 34; RM = 21) completed the study. A cost-utility analysis of RM in terms of costs per gained quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was conducted. The costs from the Public Health System (PHS) as well as patients and their relatives were taken into account for the study. The robustness of the results was verified by the probabilistic analyses through Monte-Carlo simulations.

Results: After a five-year follow-up period, total costs were lower in the RM group by 23.02% than in the CM group (€274.52 versus €356.62; p = 0.033) because of a cost saving from patients' perspective (€59.05 versus €102.98; p = 0.002). However, the reduction of in-hospital visits derived from RM exhibited insignificant impact on the costs from the PHS perspective, with a cost saving of 15.04% (€215.48 vs. €253.64; p = 0.144). Costs/QALYs obtained by the RM group were higher as compared to the CM group, although there were no significant differences. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CM in comparison to RM became positive (€301.16).

Conclusions: This study confirms RM of older patients with pacemakers appears still as a cost-utility alternative to CM in hospital after 5 years of follow-up.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: (Identifier: NCT02234245 ). Registered 09 September 2014 - Prospectively registered.

Keywords: Cost-utility; Pacemakers follow-up; Quality-adjusted life years; Remote monitoring; Telemedicine.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Evolution of Utilities along the five-year follow-up period

References

    1. Wilkoff BL, Auricchio A, Brugada J, Cowie M, Ellenbogen KA, Gillis AM, Hayes DL, Howlett JG, Kautzner J, Love CJ, Morgan JM, Priori SG, Reynolds DW, Schoenfeld MH, Vardas PE, Heart Rhythm Society (HRS); European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA); American College of Cardiology (ACC); American Heart Association (AHA); European Society of Cardiology (ESC); Heart Failure Association of ESC (HFA); Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA). HRS/EHRA Expert Consensus on the Monitoring of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices (CIEDs): description of techniques, indications, personnel, frequency and ethical considerations: developed in partnership with the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) and the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA); and in collaboration with the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), the Heart Failure Association of ESC (HFA), and the Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA) Endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society, the European Heart Rhythm Association (a registered branch of the ESC), the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association. Europace. 2008;10(6):707–725. doi: 10.1093/europace/eun122.
    1. Cronin E, Varma N. Remote monitoring of cardiovascular implanted electronic devices: a paradigm shift for the 21st century. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2012;9(4):367–376. doi: 10.1586/erd.12.18.
    1. Mabo P, Victor F, Bazin P, Ahres S, Babuty D, Da Costa A, Binet D, Dauber J C.t. A randomized trial of long-term remote monitoring of pacemaker recipients (The COMPAS trial). European Heart Journal 2012; 33: 1105–1111.
    1. Amala A, Turner T, Gretton M, Baksh A, Cleland J. A systematic review of telemonitoring for the management of heart failure. European Journal of Heart Failure. 2003;5:583–590. doi: 10.1016/S1388-9842(03)00160-0.
    1. Folino AF, Breda R, Calzavara P, Migliore F, Iliceto S, Buja G. In-home controls of pacemakers in debilitated elderly patients. Geriatrics and gerontology international. 2012;12:30–35. doi: 10.1111/j.1447-0594.2011.00723.x.
    1. López-Villegas A, Catalán-Matamoros D, Robles-Musso E, Peiró S. Comparative effectiveness of remote monitoring of people with cardiac Pacemaker versus conventional: Quality of life at the 6 months. Revista Española de Salud Pública. 2015;89(2):149–158. doi: 10.4321/S1135-57272015000200004.
    1. López-Villegas A, Catalán-Matamoros D, Robles-Musso E, Peiró S. Effectiveness of Pacemaker Tele-Monitoring on Quality of Life, Functional Capacity, Event Detection and Workload. The PONIENTE trial. Geriatrics and Gerontology International. 2016;16(11):1188–1195. doi: 10.1111/ggi.12612.
    1. Ricci RP, Morichelli L, Santini M. Home monitoring remote control of pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients in clinical practice: impact on medical management and health-care resource utilization. Europace. 2008;10:164–170. doi: 10.1093/europace/eum289.
    1. Guedon-Moreau L, Lacroix D, Sadoul N, Clementy J, Kouakam C, Hermida JS, Aliot E, Boursier M, Bizeau O, Kacet S, ECOST trial Investigators A randomized study of remote follow-up of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: safety and efficacy report of the ECOST trial. European Heart Journal. 2013;34:605–614. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs425.
    1. Halimi F, Clémenty J, Attuel P, Dessenne X, Amara W, on behalf of the OEDIPE trial Investigators Optimized post-operative surveillance of permanent pacemakers by home monitoring: the OEDIPE trial. Europace. 2008;10:1392–1399. doi: 10.1093/europace/eun250.
    1. García-Fernández FJ, Osca Asensi J, Romero R, Fernández Lozano I, Larrazabal JM, Martínez Ferrer J, Ortiz R, Pombo M, Tornés FJ, Moradi Kolbolandi M. Safety and efficiency of a common and simplified protocol for pacemaker and defibrillator surveillance based on remote monitoring only: a long-term randomized trial (RM-ALONE) European Heart Journal. 2019;40(23):1837–1846. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz067.
    1. Barlow J, Bayer S, Curry R. Implementing complex innovations in fluid multi-stakeholder environments: Experiences of “telecare”. Technovation. 2006;26:396–406. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2005.06.010.
    1. Christensen J. The emergence and unfolding of telemonitoring practices in different healthcare organizations. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2018;15(1):61. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15010061.
    1. Zanaboni P, Landolina M, Marzegalli M, Lunati M, Perego GB, Guenzati G, Curnis A, Valsecchi S, Borghetti F, Borghi G, Masella C. Cost-utility analysis of the EVOLVO study on remote monitoring for heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators: randomized controlled trial. Journal of medical Internet research. 2013;15(5):106. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2587.
    1. Halimi F, Cantu F. Remote monitoring for active cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: a European survey. Europace. 2010;12:1778–1780. doi: 10.1093/europace/euq399.
    1. Health Quality Ontario. Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy, and permanent pacemakers: a health technology assessment. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser [Internet]. 2018 Oct;18 (7):1–199. Available from: .
    1. Haugaa KH, Potpara TS, Boveda S, Deharo JC, Chen J, Dobreanu D, Sciarrafia E. Patients’ knowledge and attitudes regarding living with implantable electronic devices: results of a multicentre, multinational patient survey conducted by the European Heart Rhythm Association. Ep Europace. 2017;20(2):386–391. doi: 10.1093/europace/eux365.
    1. Somat A. Acceptabilité, acceptabilité sociale des systèmes technologiques : ingénierie de la notion d’usage. Grenoble: Conférence des sciences de l’éducation, Université Pierre-Mendès-France; 2008.
    1. Poder TG, Bellemare CA, Bédard SK, Lemieux R. Social acceptance and population confidence in telehealth in Quebec. BMC Health Services Research. 2015;15:72. doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-0727-1.
    1. Winkelmayer WC, Cohen DJ, Berger ML, Neumann PJ. Comparing cost-utility analyses in cardiovascular medicine. In: Weintraub WS, editor. Cardiovascular Health Care Economics. Totowa: Humana Press; 2003. pp. 329–356.
    1. Burri H, Sticherling C, Wright D, Makino K, Smala A, Tilden D. Cost-consequence analysis of daily continuous remote monitoring of implantable cardiac defibrillator and resynchronization devices in the UK. Europace. 2013;15(11):1601–1608. doi: 10.1093/europace/eut070.
    1. Urquhart AC, Antoniotti NM, Berg RL. Telemedicine – an efficient and cost-effective approach in parathyroid surgery. Laryngoscope. 2011;121(7):1422–1425. doi: 10.1002/lary.21812.
    1. Capucci A, De Simone A, Luzi M, Calvi V, Stabile G, D'Onofrio A, Maffei S, Leoni L, Morani G, Sangiuolo R, Amellone C, Checchinato C, Ammendola E, Buja G. Economic impact of remote monitoring after implantable defibrillators implantation in heart failure patients: an analysis from the EFFECT study. Europace. 2017;19(9):1493–1499. doi: 10.1093/europace/eux017.
    1. Dario C, Delise P, Gubian L, Saccavini C, Brandolino G, Mancin S. Large controlled observational study on remote monitoring of pacemakers and implantable cardiac defibrillators: a clinical, economic, and organizational evaluation. Interact J Med Res. 2016;5(1):4. doi: 10.2196/ijmr.4270.
    1. Raatikainen MJ, Uusimaa P, van Ginneken MM, Janssen JP, Linnaluoto M. Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients: a safe, time-saving, and cost-effective means for follow-up. Europace. 2008;10(10):1145–1151. doi: 10.1093/europace/eun203.
    1. Hofmann R, Voller H, Nagels K, et al. First outline and baseline data of a randomized, controlled multicenter trial to evaluate the health economic impact of home telemonitoring in chronic heart failure – CardioBBEAT. Trials. 2015;16:343. doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-0886-8.
    1. Perl S, Stiegler P, Rotman B, Prenner G, Lercher P, Anelli-Monti M, Sereinigg M, Riegelnik V, Kvas E, Kos C, Heinzel FR, Tscheliessnigg KH, Pieske B. Socio-economic effects and cost saving potential of remote patient monitoring (SAVE-HM trial) International Journal of Cardiology. 2013;169:402–407. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2013.10.019.
    1. López-Villegas A, Catalán-Matamoros D, Martín-Saborido C, Villegas Tripiana I, Robles-Musso E. A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Pacemaker Telemonitoring Systems. Revista Española de Cardiología. 2016;69(2):125–133. doi: 10.1016/j.recesp.2015.06.021.
    1. Lopez-Villegas A, Catalan-Matamoros D, Peiro S, Lappegard K, Lopez-Liria R. Cost–utility analysis of telemonitoring versus conventional hospital-based follow-up of patients with pacemakers. The NORDLAND randomized clinical trial. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(1):e0226188. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226188.
    1. Lopez-Villegas A, Catalan-Matamoros D, Robles-Musso E, Bautista-Mesa R, Peiro S. Cost-utility analysis on telemonitoring of users with pacemakers: The PONIENTE study. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare. 2019;25(4):204–212. doi: 10.1177/1357633X18767184.
    1. Medtronic. How the CareLink Network Works [monograph on the Internet]. 2014 . Accessed 18 Jun 2020.
    1. Radio Taxi-Almería. Calcular precio del servicio [monograph on the Internet]. 2018. . Accessed 18 Jun 2020.
    1. ALSA Hacemos tu viaje más fácil. Compra y horarios [monograph on the Internet]. . Accessed 18 Jun 2020.
    1. Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria. Asignaciones para gastos de locomoción [monograph on the Internet]. 2018. . Accessed 18 Jun 2020.
    1. Ministerio de Empleo y Seguridad Social. Retribuciones [monograph on the Internet]. 2013. . Accessed 18 Jun 2020.
    1. Badia X, Roset M, Montserrat S, Herdman M, Segura A. La versión española del EuroQol: descripción y aplicaciones. Medicina Clínica. 1999;112(Supl 1):79–86.
    1. EuroQol Group EuroQol . A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9.
    1. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2005.
    1. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996.
    1. Altawalbeh SM, Alshogran OY, Smith KJ. Cost-Utility Analysis of Apixaban versus Warfarin in Atrial Fibrillation Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease. Value in Health. 2018;21(12):1365–1372. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.06.009.
    1. Crossley GH, Boyle A, Vitense A, Chang Y. Mead RH for the CONNECT Investigators, The CONNECT (Clinical Evaluation of Remote Notification to Reduce Time to Clinical Decision) Trial: The value of wireless remote monitoring with automatic clinician alerts. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2011;57:1182–1189. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.12.012.
    1. Lopez-Villegas A, Catalan-Matamoros D, Lopez-Liria R, Enebakk T, Thunhaug H, Lappegård KT. Health-related quality of life on tele-monitoring for users with pacemakers 6 months after implant: the NORDLAND study, a randomized trial. BMC Geriatr. 2018;18(1):223. doi: 10.1186/s12877-018-0911-3.
    1. Folino A, Breda R, Calzavara P, Borghetti F, Comisso J, Iliceto S, Buja G. Remote follow-up of pacemakers in a selected population of debilitated elderly patients. Europace. 2013;15(3):382–387. doi: 10.1093/europace/eus351.
    1. Morgan JM, Kitt S, Gill J, McComb JM, Ng GA, Raftery J, Roderick P, Seed A, Williams SG, Witte KK, Wright DJ, Harris S, Cowie MR. Remote management of heart failure using implantable electronic devices. European Heart Journal. 2017;38(30):2352–2360. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx227.
    1. Boriani G, Da Costa A, Quesada A, Ricci RP, Favale S, Boscolo G, Clementy N, Amori V, Mangoni di S Stefano L, Burri H; MORE-CARE Study Investigators. Effects of remote monitoring on clinical outcomes and use of healthcare resources in heart failure patients with biventricular defibrillators: results of the MORE-CARE multicentre randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Heart Failure. 2017;19 (3):416–425.
    1. Freeman JV, Saxon L. Remote Monitoring and Outcomes in Pacemaker and Defibrillator Patients. Big Data Saving Lives? Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2015;65(24):2611–2613. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.04.031.
    1. Zabel M, Müller-Riemenschneider F, Christoph Geller FJ, Brachmann J, Kühlkamp V, Dissmann R, Reinhold T, Roll S, Lüthje L, Bode F, Eckardt L, Willich SN, investigators MONITOR-ICD. Rationale and design of the MONITOR-ICD study: A randomized comparison of economic and clinical effects of automatic remote monitoring versus control in patients with Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators. American Heart Journal. 2014;168(4):430–437. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2014.04.021.
    1. Neyt M, Stroobandt S, Obyn C, Camberlin C, Devriese S, De Laet C, Van Brabandt H. Cost-effectiveness of cardiac resynchronisation therapy for patients with moderate-to-severe heart failure: a lifetime Markov model. BMJ Open. 2011;1(2):e000276. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000276.
    1. Udo EO, van Hemel NM, Zuithoff NP, Nijboer H, Taks W, Doevendans PA, Moons KG. Long term quality-of-life in patients with bradycardia pacemaker implantation. International Journal of Cardiology 2013 Oct 3;168(3):2159–2163. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2013.01.253. Epub 2013 Feb 28. PMID: 23453871.
    1. Koehler F, Koehler K, Deckwart O, Prescher S, Wegscheider K, Kirwan BA, Winkler S, Vettorazzi E, Bruch L, Oeff M, Zugck C, Doerr G, Naegele H, Störk S, Butter C, Sechtem U, Angermann C, Gola G, Prondzinsky R, Edelmann F, Spethmann S, Schellong SM, Schulze PC, Bauersachs J, Wellge B, Schoebel C, Tajsic M, Dreger H, Anker SD, Stangl K. Efficacy of telemedical interventional management in patients with heart failure (TIM-HF2): a randomised, controlled, parallel-group, unmasked trial. Lancet. 2018;392(10152):1047–1057. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31880-4.
    1. Chang S, Davidson PM, Newton PJ, Macdonald P, Carrington MJ, Marwick TH, Horowitz JD, Krum H, Reid CM, Chan YK, Scuffham PA, Sibbritt D, Stewart S, Investigators WHICH. Composite outcome measures in a pragmatic clinical trial of chronic heart failure management: A comparative assessment. International Jorunal of Cardiology. 2015 Apr 15;185:62–8. 10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.03.071. Epub 2015 Mar 5 25791092.
    1. Pocock SJ, Gersh BJ. Do current clinical trials meet society’s needs?: a critical review of recent evidence. J Am College Cardiology. 2014;64:1615–1628. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.08.008.
    1. Cano Pérez O, Pombo Jiménez M, Lorente Carreño D, Chimeno García J. Spanish Pacemaker Registry. 16th Official Report of the Spanish Society of Cardiology Working Group on Cardiac Pacing (2018) Revista Española de Cardiología. 2019;72(11):944–953. doi: 10.1016/j.recesp.2019.07.005.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe