Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2013 May 30;15(5):e106.
doi: 10.2196/jmir.2587.

Cost-utility analysis of the EVOLVO study on remote monitoring for heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators: randomized controlled trial

Paolo Zanaboni  1 , Maurizio Landolina, Maurizio Marzegalli, Maurizio Lunati, Giovanni B Perego, Giuseppe Guenzati, Antonio Curnis, Sergio Valsecchi, Francesca Borghetti, Gabriella Borghi, Cristina Masella
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Cost-utility analysis of the EVOLVO study on remote monitoring for heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators: randomized controlled trial

Paolo Zanaboni et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: Heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators place a significant burden on health care systems. Remote monitoring allows assessment of device function and heart failure parameters, and may represent a safe, effective, and cost-saving method compared to conventional in-office follow-up.

Objective: We hypothesized that remote device monitoring represents a cost-effective approach. This paper summarizes the economic evaluation of the Evolution of Management Strategies of Heart Failure Patients With Implantable Defibrillators (EVOLVO) study, a multicenter clinical trial aimed at measuring the benefits of remote monitoring for heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators.

Methods: Two hundred patients implanted with a wireless transmission-enabled implantable defibrillator were randomized to receive either remote monitoring or the conventional method of in-person evaluations. Patients were followed for 16 months with a protocol of scheduled in-office and remote follow-ups. The economic evaluation of the intervention was conducted from the perspectives of the health care system and the patient. A cost-utility analysis was performed to measure whether the intervention was cost-effective in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.

Results: Overall, remote monitoring did not show significant annual cost savings for the health care system (€1962.78 versus €2130.01; P=.80). There was a significant reduction of the annual cost for the patients in the remote arm in comparison to the standard arm (€291.36 versus €381.34; P=.01). Cost-utility analysis was performed for 180 patients for whom QALYs were available. The patients in the remote arm gained 0.065 QALYs more than those in the standard arm over 16 months, with a cost savings of €888.10 per patient. Results from the cost-utility analysis of the EVOLVO study show that remote monitoring is a cost-effective and dominant solution.

Conclusions: Remote management of heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators appears to be cost-effective compared to the conventional method of in-person evaluations.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00873899; http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00873899 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6H0BOA29f).

Keywords: cost-effectiveness; heart failure; implantable defibrillators; telemedicine.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: Dr Landolina has speakers’ bureau appointments and an advisory board relationship with Medtronic and other device companies. Valsecchi and Borghetti are employees of Medtronic Inc. The other authors report no conflicts.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Medtronic CareLink home monitor.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Medtronic Carelink Network.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) diagram of the study.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Dickstein K, Vardas PE, Auricchio A, Daubert JC, Linde C, McMurray J, Ponikowski P, Priori SG, Sutton R, van Veldhuisen DJ, ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG) 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. Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association and the European Heart Rhythm Association. Eur Heart J. 2010 Nov;31(21):2677–87. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq337. http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=20801924 - DOI - PubMed
    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 Jun;10(6):707–25. doi: 10.1093/europace/eun122. http://europace.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=18480075 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Maass AH, van Veldhuisen DJ. Remote monitoring via implanted devices in heart failure: rising star or lame duck? Eur J Heart Fail. 2011 Sep;13(9):925–6. doi: 10.1093/eurjhf/hfr096. - DOI - PubMed
    1. de Vries AE, van der Wal MH, Nieuwenhuis MM, de Jong RM, van Dijk RB, Jaarsma T, Hillege HL. Health professionals' expectations versus experiences of internet-based telemonitoring: survey among heart failure clinics. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(1):e4. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2161. http://www.jmir.org/2013/1/e4/ - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Heidbüchel H, Lioen P, Foulon S, Huybrechts W, Ector J, Willems R, Ector H. Potential role of remote monitoring for scheduled and unscheduled evaluations of patients with an implantable defibrillator. Europace. 2008 Mar;10(3):351–7. doi: 10.1093/europace/eun010. http://europace.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=18245771 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Associated data