Cost-effectiveness of an antibacterial envelope for infection prevention in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy reoperations in Denmark

Résumé fourni par la source

AIMS: Use of an absorbable antibacterial envelope during implantation prevents cardiac implantable electronic device infections in patients with a moderate-to-high infection risk. Previous studies demonstrated that an envelope is cost-effective in high-risk patients within German, Italian, and English healthcare systems, but these analyses were based on limited data and may not be generalizable to other healthcare settings. METHODS AND RESULTS: A previously published decision-tree-based cost-effectiveness model was used to compare the costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) associated with adjunctive use of an antibacterial envelope for infection prevention compared to standard-of-care intravenous antibiotics. The model was adapted using data from a Danish observational two-centre cohort study that investigated infection-risk patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reoperations with and without an antibacterial envelope (n = 1943). We assumed a cost-effectiveness threshold of €34 125/QALY gained, based on the upper threshold used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (£30 000). An antibacterial envelope was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €12 022 per QALY in patients undergoing CRT reoperations, thus indicating that the envelope is cost-effective when compared with standard of care. A separate analysis stratified by device type showed ICERS of €6227 (CRT defibrillator) and €29 177 (CRT pacemaker) per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness ratios were favourable for patients undergoing CRT reoperations in the Danish healthcare system, and thus are in line with previous studies. Results from this study can contribute to making the technology available to Danish patients and align preventive efforts in the pacemaker and ICD area.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.