Cost-utility analysis of telemonitoring versus conventional hospital-based follow-up of patients with pacemakers. The NORDLAND randomized clinical trial

Antonio Lopez-Villegas, Daniel Catalan-Matamoros, Salvador Peiro, Knut Tore Lappegard, Remedios Lopez-Liria, Antonio Lopez-Villegas, Daniel Catalan-Matamoros, Salvador Peiro, Knut Tore Lappegard, Remedios Lopez-Liria

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of our study was to perform an economic assessment in order to check whether or not telemonitoring of users with pacemakers offers a cost-effective alternative to traditional follow-up in outpatient clinics.

Methods: We used effectiveness and cost data from the NORDLAND trial, which is a controlled, randomized, non-masked clinical trial. Fifty patients were assigned to receive either telemonitoring (TM; n = 25) or conventional monitoring (CM; n = 25) and were followed up for 12 months after the implantation. A cost-utility analysis was performed in terms of additional costs per additional Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) attained from the perspectives of the Norwegian National Healthcare System and patients and their caregivers.

Results: Effectiveness was similar between alternatives (TM: 0.7804 [CI: 0.6864 to 0.8745] vs. CM: 0.7465 [CI: 0.6543 to 0.8387]), while cost per patient was higher in the RM group, both from the Norwegian NHS perspective (TM: €2,079.84 [CI: 0.00 to 4,610.58] vs. €271.97 [CI: 158.18 to 385.76]; p = 0.147) and including the patient/family perspective (TM: €2,295.91 [CI: 0.00 to 4,843.28] vs. CM: €430.39 [CI: 0.00 to 4,841.48]), although these large differences-mainly due to a few patients being hospitalized in the TM group, as opposed to none in the CM group-did not reach statistical significance. The Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) from the Norwegian NHS perspective (€53,345.27/QALY) and including the patient/caregiver perspective (€55,046.40/QALY), as well as the Incremental Net Benefit (INB), favors the CM alternative, albeit with very broad 95%CIs. The probabilistic analysis confirmed inconclusive results due to the wide CIs even suggesting that TM was not cost-effective in this study. Supplemental analysis excluding the hospitalization costs shows positive INBs, whereby suggesting a discrete superiority of the RM alternative if hospitalization costs were not considered, albeit also with broad CIs.

Conclusions: Cost-utility analysis of TM vs. CM shows inconclusive results because of broad confidence intervals with ICER and INB figures ranging from potential savings to high costs for an additional QALY, with the majority of ICERs being above the usual NHS thresholds for coverage decisions.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02237404.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1. Flow diagram (CONSORT) of the…
Fig 1. Flow diagram (CONSORT) of the study.
Fig 2. Incremental costs per QALY from…
Fig 2. Incremental costs per QALY from NHS perspective; probabilistic sensitivity analysis.
NHS: National Health System; TM: Telemonitoring; CM: Conventional Monitoring group; QALY: Quality Adjusted Life Year; ICER: Incremental Cost-effectivenes Ratio; WTP: Willingness to Pay.

References

    1. Epstein AE, DiMarco JP, Ellenbogen KA, Estes NA, Freedman RA, Gettes LS, et al. 2012 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused update incorporated into the ACCF/AHA/HRS 2008 guidelines for device-based therapy of cardiac rhythm abnormalities: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. Circulation. 2013;127(3):e283–352. 10.1161/CIR.0b013e318276ce9b
    1. Wilkoff BL, Auricchio A, Brugada J, Cowie M, Ellenbogen KA, Gillis AM, et al. HRS/EHRA expert consensus on the monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs): description of techniques, indications, personnel, frequency and ethical considerations. Heart Rhythm. 2008;5(6):907–25. 10.1016/j.hrthm.2008.04.013
    1. Marinskis G, van Erven L, Bongiorni MG, Lip GY, Pison L, Blomström-Lundqvist C; Scientific Initiative Committee, European Heart Rhythm Association. Practices of cardiac implantable electronic device follow-up: results of the European Heart Rhythm Association survey. Europace. 2012;14(3):423–5. 10.1093/europace/eus020
    1. Raatikainen MJP, Arnar DO, Merkely B, Nielsen JC, Hindricks G, Heidbuchel H, et al. A Decade of Information on the Use of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices and Interventional Electrophysiological Procedures in the European Society of Cardiology Countries: 2017 Report from the European Heart Rhythm Association. Europace. 2017;19:S2:ii1–ii90.
    1. Santini M. Remote monitoring and the twin epidemics of atrial fibrillation and chronic heart failure. Europace. 2013;15:S1:i47–i48.
    1. Zanaboni P, Landolina M, Marzegalli M, Lunati M, Perego GB, Guenzati G, et al. Cost-utility analysis of the EVOLVO study on remote monitoring for heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(5):e106 10.2196/jmir.2587
    1. Folino AF, Breda R, Calzavara P, Migliore F, Iliceto S, Buja G. In-home controls of pacemakers in debilitated elderly patients. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2012;12:30–5. 10.1111/j.1447-0594.2011.00723.x
    1. Folino AF, Breda R, Calzavara P, Borghetti F, Comisso J, Iliceto S, et al. Remote follow-up of pacemakers in a selected population of debilitated elderly patients. Europace. 2013;15(3):382–7. 10.1093/europace/eus351
    1. López-Villegas A, Catalán-Matamoros D, Robles-Musso E, Peiró S. Workload, time and costs of the informal cares in patients with tele-monitoring of pacemakers. The PONIENTE study. Clin Res Cardiol. 2016;105(4):307–13. 10.1007/s00392-015-0921-5
    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):367–76. 10.1586/erd.12.18
    1. Mabo P, Victor F, Bazin P, Ahres S, Babuty D, Da Costa A, et al. A randomized trial of long-term remote monitoring of pacemaker recipients (the COMPAS trial). Eur Heart J. 2012;33(9):1105–11. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr419
    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. Rev Esp Salud Pública. 2015;89(2):149–58. 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. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2016;16(11):1188–95. 10.1111/ggi.12612
    1. Guédon-Moreau L, Lacroix D, Sadoul N, Clémenty J, Kouakam C, Hermida JS, et al. ECOST trial investigators. A randomized study of remote follow-up of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: safety and efficacy report of the ECOST trial. Eur Heart J. 2013;34:605–14. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs425
    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;10:164–70. 10.1093/europace/eum289
    1. Heidbüchel H, Lioen P, Foulon S, Huybrechts W, Ector J, Willems R, et al. Potential role of remote monitoring for scheduled and unscheduled evaluations of patients with an implantable defibrillator. Europace. 2008;10(3):351–7. 10.1093/europace/eun010
    1. Gramegna L, Tomasi C, Gasparini G, Scaboro G, Zanon F, Boaretto G, et al. In-hospital follow-up of implantable cardioverter defibrillator and pacemaker carriers: patients’ inconvenience and points of view. A four-hospital Italian survey. Europace. 2012;14(3):345–50. 10.1093/europace/eur334
    1. Varma N, Michalski J, Stambler B, Pavri BB; TRUST investigators. Superiority of automatic remote monitoring compared with in-person evaluation for scheduled ICD follow-up in the TRUST trial—testing execution of the recommendations. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(20):1345–52. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu066
    1. Catalán-Matamoros Daniel, López-Villegas Antonio. La Telesalud y la sociedad actual: retos y oportunidades. Rev Esp Comun Salud. 2016;7(2):336–45.
    1. Gillis AM. Remote Monitoring of Implantable Defibrillators: Reducing Hospitalizations and Saving Lives? Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2015;8(5):1010–1. 10.1161/CIRCEP.115.003287
    1. Slotwiner D, Varma N, Akar JG, Annas G, Beardsall M, Fogel RI, et al. HRS Expert Consensus Statement on remote interrogation and monitoring for cardiovascular implantable electronic devices. Heart Rhythm. 2015;12(7):e69–100. 10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.05.008
    1. Varma N, Piccini JP, Snell J, Fischer A, Dalal N, Mittal S. The Relationship Between Level of Adherence to Automatic Wireless Remote Monitoring and Survival in Pacemaker and Defibrillator Patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65(24):2601–10. 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.04.033
    1. Hernández-Madrid A, Lewalter T, Proclemer A, Pison L, Lip GY, Blomstrom-Lundqvist C; Scientific Initiatives Committee, European Heart Rhythm Association. Remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices in Europe: results of the European Heart Rhythm Association survey. Europace. 2014;16(1):129–32. 10.1093/europace/eut414
    1. Winkelmayer WC, Cohen DJ, Berger ML, et al. Comparing cost-utility analyses in cardiovascular medicine In: Weintraub WS (ed.). Cardiovascular Health Care Economics. Totowa: Humana Press, 2003; pp.329–56.
    1. Muñoz-Cruzado y Barba Miguel, López-Villegas Antonio, Catalán-Matamoros Daniel, Conclusiones y recomendaciones del I Congreso Internacional de Telemedicina e Investigación Sanitaria. Rev Esp Comun Salud. 2016;7(2):164–166. 10.20318/recs.2016.3442
    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):1601–8. 10.1093/europace/eut070
    1. Guédon-Moreau L, Lacroix D, Sadoul N, Clementy J, Kouakam C, Hermida JS, et al. Costs of remote monitoring vs. ambulatory follow-ups of implanted cardioverter defibrillators in the randomized ECOST study. Europace. 2014;16(8):1181–8. 10.1093/europace/euu012
    1. Ricci RP, Vicentini A, D’Onofrio A, Sagone A, Rovaris G, Padeletti L, et al. Economic analysis of remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices: Results of the Health Economics Evaluation Registry for Remote Follow-up (TARIFF) study. Heart Rhythm. 2017;14(1):50–7. 10.1016/j.hrthm.2016.09.008
    1. Capucci A, De Simone A, Luzi M, Calvi V, Stabile G, D’Onofrio A, et al. Economic impact of remote monitoring after implantable defibrillators implantation in heart failure patients: an analysis from the EFFECT study. Europace. 2017;19(9):1493–9. 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):e4 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):1145–51. 10.1093/europace/eun203
    1. Perl S, Stiegler P, Rotman B, Prenner G, Lercher P, Anelli-Monti M, et al. Socio-economic effects and cost saving potential of remote patient monitoring (SAVE-HM trial). Int J Cardiol. 2013;169:402–7. 10.1016/j.ijcard.2013.10.019
    1. Halimi F, Clémenty J, Attuel P, Dessenne X, Amara W; OEDIPE trial investigators. Optimized post-operative surveillance of permanent pacemakers by home monitoring: the OEDIPE trial. Europace. 2008;10:1392–9. 10.1093/europace/eun250
    1. Ricci RP, Vicentini A, D’Onofrio A, Sagone A, Vincenti A, Padeletti L, et al. Impact of in-clinic follow-up visits in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators: demographic and socioeconomic analysis of the TARIFF study population. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2013;38(2):101–6. 10.1007/s10840-013-9823-5
    1. Hofmann R, Völler H, Nagels K, Bindl D, Vettorazzi E, DitRMar Dittmar R, et al. First outline and baseline data of a randomized, controlled multicenter trial to evaluate the health economic impact of home remote monitoring in chronic heart failure—CardioBBEAT. Trials. 2015;16:343 10.1186/s13063-015-0886-8
    1. López-Villegas A, Catalán-Matamoros D, Martín-Saborido C, Villegas-Tripiana I, Robles-Musso E. A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Pacemaker Remote Monitoring Systems. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2016;69(2):125–33. 10.1016/j.rec.2015.06.020
    1. Lopez-Villegas A, Catalan-Matamoros D, Robles-Musso E, Bautista-Mesa R, Peiro S. Cost-utility analysis on remote monitoring of users with pacemakers: The PONIENTE study. J Telemed Telecare. 2018:1357633X18767184.
    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 10.1186/s12877-018-0911-3
    1. López-Liria R, López-Villegas A, Enebakk T, Thunhaug H, Lappegård KT, Catalán-Matamoros D. Remote Monitoring and Quality of Life in Patients after 12 Months Following a Pacemaker Implant: the Nordland Study, a Randomised Trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(11). pii: E2001 10.3390/ijerph16112001
    1. Coretti S, Ruggeri M, McNamee P. The minimum clinically important difference for EQ-5D index: a critical review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14(2):221–33. 10.1586/14737167.2014.894462
    1. Group EuroQol. EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208. 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9
    1. Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ. Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ. 2005;14(5):487–96. 10.1002/hec.944
    1. Willan AR, O’Brien BJ. Confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios: an application of Fieller’s theorem. Health Econ. 1996;5(4):297–305. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199607)5:4<297::AID-HEC216>;2-T
    1. Severens JL, De Boo RM, Konst EM. Uncertainty of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. A comparison of Fieller and bootstrap confidence intervals. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999;15(3):608–14.
    1. Willan AR, Lin DY. Incremental net benefit in randomized clinical trials. Stat Med. 2001;20(11):1563–74. 10.1002/sim.789
    1. Willan AR. Incremental net benefit in the analysis of economic data from clinical trials, with application to the CADET-Hp trial. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;16(6):543–9. 10.1097/00042737-200406000-00006
    1. McGhan WF, Tundia N, Quadri H, Viswanathan S, Peterson A. Evaluating an online calculator for analyzing incremental net benefit and the expected value of perfect information from patient level data. Value Health. 2007;10(3):A185.
    1. Boriani G, Da Costa A, Quesada A, Ricci RP, Favale S, Boscolo G, et al. 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. Eur J Heart Fail. 2017;19(3):416–425. 10.1002/ejhf.626
    1. Crossley GH, Boyle A, Vitense H, Chang Y, Mead RH; 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. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(10):1181–9. 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.12.012
    1. Klersy C, Boriani G, De Silvestri A, Mairesse GH, Braunschweig F, Scotti V, et al. Effect of remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices on healthcare utilization: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in patients with heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2016;18(2):195–204. 10.1002/ejhf.470
    1. Klersy C, De Silvestri A, Gabutti G, Raisaro A, Curti M, Regoli F, et al. Economic impact of remote patient monitoring: an integrated economic model derived from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2011;13(4):450–9. 10.1093/eurjhf/hfq232
    1. Landolina M, Perego GB, Lunati M, Curnis A, Guenzati G, Vicentini A, et al. Remote monitoring reduces healthcare use and improves quality of care in heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators: the evolution of management strategies of heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators (EVOLVO) study. Circulation. 2012;125(24):2985–92. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.088971
    1. Piccini JP, Mittal S, Snell J, Prillinger JB, Dalal N, Varma N. Impact of remote monitoring on clinical events and associated health care utilization: A nationwide assessment. Heart Rhythm. 2016;13(12):2279–2286. 10.1016/j.hrthm.2016.08.024
    1. Ladapo JA, Turakhia MP, Ryan MP, Mollenkopf SA, Reynolds MR. Health Care Utilization and Expenditures Associated With Remote Monitoring in Patients With Implantable Cardiac Devices. Am J Cardiol. 2016;117(9):1455–62. 10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.02.015
    1. García-Fernández FJ, Osca Asensi J, Romero R, Fernández Lozano I, Larrazabal JM, Martínez Ferrer J, et al. 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). Eur Heart J. 2019. pii: ehz067.
    1. Catalán-Matamoros Daniel, López-Villegas Antonio. Telemedicine in the Artic: communication challenges. Rev Esp Comun Salud. 2015;6(1):1–2.
    1. Pang HW, Campbell D, Hopman WM, Brennan FJ, Abdollah H, Redfearn DP, et al. Effectiveness and feasibility of a transtelephonic monitoring program: implications for a time of crisis. Int J Cardiol. 2010;145(3):529–30. 10.1016/j.ijcard.2010.04.061
    1. Facchin D, Baccillieri MS, Gasparini G, Zoppo F, Allocca G, Brieda M, et al. Findings of an observational investigation of pure remote follow-up of pacemaker patients: is the in-clinic device check still needed? Int J Cardiol. 2016;220:781–6. 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.06.162
    1. Szende A, Oppe M, Devlin N, on behalf of the EuroQol Group Task Force on Value Sets. Dordretch, Netherlands: Springer; 2007.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe