Rationale and design of the health economics evaluation registry for remote follow-up: TARIFF

Renato P Ricci, Antonio D'Onofrio, Luigi Padeletti, Antonio Sagone, Alfredo Vicentini, Antonio Vincenti, Loredana Morichelli, Ciro Cavallaro, Giuseppe Ricciardi, Leonida Lombardi, Antonio Fusco, Giovanni Rovaris, Paolo Silvestri, Tiziana Guidotto, Annalisa Pollastrelli, Massimo Santini, Renato P Ricci, Antonio D'Onofrio, Luigi Padeletti, Antonio Sagone, Alfredo Vicentini, Antonio Vincenti, Loredana Morichelli, Ciro Cavallaro, Giuseppe Ricciardi, Leonida Lombardi, Antonio Fusco, Giovanni Rovaris, Paolo Silvestri, Tiziana Guidotto, Annalisa Pollastrelli, Massimo Santini

Abstract

Aims: The aims of the study are to develop a cost-minimization analysis from the hospital perspective and a cost-effectiveness analysis from the third payer standpoint, based on direct estimates of costs and QOL associated with remote follow-ups, using Merlin@home and Merlin.net, compared with standard ambulatory follow-ups, in the management of ICD and CRT-D recipients.

Methods and results: Remote monitoring systems can replace ambulatory follow-ups, sparing human and economic resources, and increasing patient safety. TARIFF is a prospective, controlled, observational study aimed at measuring the direct and indirect costs and quality of life (QOL) of all participants by a 1-year economic evaluation. A detailed set of hospitalized and ambulatory healthcare costs and losses of productivity that could be directly influenced by the different means of follow-ups will be collected. The study consists of two phases, each including 100 patients, to measure the economic resources consumed during the first phase, associated with standard ambulatory follow-ups, vs. the second phase, associated with remote follow-ups.

Conclusion: Remote monitoring systems enable caregivers to better ensure patient safety and the healthcare to limit costs. TARIFF will allow defining the economic value of remote ICD follow-ups for Italian hospitals, third payers, and patients. The TARIFF study, based on a cost-minimization analysis, directly comparing remote follow-up with standard ambulatory visits, will validate the cost effectiveness of the Merlin.net technology, and define a proper reimbursement schedule applicable for the Italian healthcare system.

Trial registration: NCT01075516.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flow chart.

References

    1. Cleland JGF, Lewinter C, Goode KM. Telemonitoring for heart failure: the only feasible option for good universal care? Eur J Heart Fail. 2009;11:227–8.
    1. Moss AJ, Hall WJ, Cannom DS, Daubert JP, Higgins SL, Klein H, et al. Improved survival with an implanted defibrillator in patients with coronary disease at high risk for ventricular arrhythmia. Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:1933–40.
    1. Buxton AE, Lee KL, Fisher JD, Josephson ME, Prystowsky EN, Hafley G. A randomized study of the prevention of sudden death in patients with coronary artery disease. Multicenter Unsustained Tachycardia Trial Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:1882–90.
    1. Moss AJ, Hall WJ, Cannom DS, Daubert JP, Higgins SL, Klein H, et al. Multicenter automatic defibrillator implantation trial II investigators. Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:877–83.
    1. Bardy GH, Lee KL, Mark DB, Poole JE, Packer DL, Boineau R, et al. Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT) Investigators. Amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:225–37.
    1. Dickstein K, Vardas PE, Auricchio A, Daubert JC, Linde C, McMurray J, et al. 2010 Focused Update of ESC Guidelines on device therapy in heart failure: an update of the 2008 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure and the 2007 ESC Guidelines for cardiac and resynchronization therapy. Europace. 2010;12:1526–36.
    1. Boriani G, Auricchio A, Klersy C, Kirchhof P, Brugada J, Morgan J, et al. Healthcare personnel resource burden related to in-clinic follow-up of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: a European Heart Rhythm Association and Eucomed joint survey. Europace. 2011;13:1166–73.
    1. Wilkoff BL, Auricchio A, Brugada J, Cowie M, Ellenbogen KA, Gillis MA, 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;5:907–25.
    1. Lazarus A. Remote, wireless, ambulatory monitoring of implantable pacemakers, cardioverter defibrillators, and cardic resynchronization therapy systems: analysis of a worldwide database. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2007;30:1424.
    1. Sharpe N. Heart failure management, a broader view required. Eur Heart J. 1998;19:975.
    1. Clark RA, Inglis SC, McAlister FA, Cleland J, Stewart S. Telemonitoring or structured telephone support programmes for patients with chronic heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2007;334:942.
    1. Halimi F, Cantu F. Remote monitoring for active cardiovascular implantable electonic devices: a European Survey. Europace. 2010;12:1778–80.
    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. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:1182–9.
    1. Varma N, Michalski J, Epstein AE, Schweikert R. Automatic remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead and generator performance the Lumos-T safely RedUceS RouTine. Circulation. 2010;122:428–36.
    1. Spencker S, Coban N, Koch L, Schirdewan A, Müller D. Potential role of home monitoring to reduce inappropriate shocks in implantable cardioverterdefibrillator patients due to lead failure. Europace. 2009;11:483–8.
    1. Reynolds DW, Jayaprasad N, Francis J. Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J. 2006;6:186–8.
    1. Ricci RP, Morichelli L, Santini M. Remote control of implanted devices through home monitoring technology improves detection and clinical management of atrial fibrillation. Europace. 2009;11:54–61.
    1. Ricci RP, Morichelli L, Gargaro A, Laudadio MT, Santini M. Home monitoring in patients with implantable cardiac devices: is there a potential reduction of stroke risk? Results from a computer model tested through Monte Carlo simulations. J Cardiovas Electrophysiol. 2009;20:1244–51.
    1. Burri H, Senouf D. Remote monitoring and follow-up of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Europace. 2009;11:701–9.
    1. . ‘© 1990 EuroQol Group. EQ-5D™ is a trade mark of the EuroQol Group’.
    1. Elsner CH, Sommer P, Piorkowski C, Taborsky M, Neuser H, Bytesnik J, et al. A Prospective Multicenter Comparison Trial of home monitoring against regular follow-up in MADIT II patients: additional visits and cost impact. Comput Cardiol. 2006;33:241–4.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe