Cost of Chronic Heart Failure Among Adult Europeans—A Systematic Literature Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Chronic heart failure (CHF) imposes a substantial and growing burden on healthcare systems. While individual studies have evaluated the cost of CHF, variability in reporting standards and regional data gaps limit the comparability of findings. OBJECTIVE: This systematic literature review and exploratory meta-analysis aimed to synthesize current evidence on the total annual per-patient cost of CHF in Europe. METHODS: Eligibility Criteria. The review included original studies, published in English, on human adult patients with a diagnosis of CHF from Europe, evaluating its economic burden. Studies were excluded if costs were not expressed in monetary currency, if costs represented fractions of the total cost, or if cost analysis focused either on a specific element of CHF management or intervention or patient subgroup. INFORMATION SOURCES: The review was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from January 2008 to March 2025. Risk of Bias. Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) grading was used to assess risk of bias. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Costs were adjusted to 2024 euro (€) values using the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices. An exploratory random-effects meta-analysis was performed to pool mean annual costs, and risk of bias was assessed using validated tools. RESULTS: Included Studies. In total, 19 studies met inclusion criteria. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Across the included studies, the adjusted mean annual total cost of CHF per patient ranged from 3452 € to 23,335 €, reflecting considerable variation in cost estimates across different healthcare systems and study designs. Most studies reported hospitalization as the main cost driver, typically accounting for over half of total direct medical expenditures; 13 studies reported the proportion of total annual cost explained by CHF hospitalization, with a mean of 64.9% ± 18.3%. NOS grading did not exclude any study on the basis of risk of bias alone; from the 19 included studies, only 1 was rated as low risk of bias (NOS = 8), while the majority (16 studies) were evaluated to have moderate risk of bias. DISCUSSION: > 99%) was present across included studies, reflecting differences in healthcare settings, costing methods, and population characteristics. Evidence of potential publication bias was identified, suggesting that lower-cost studies may be underrepresented. Variability in cost components, perspectives (healthcare system versus societal) and geographical representation further limited the precision of the pooled estimate. Future research should prioritize standardized cost reporting and include underrepresented regions to support more accurate economic evaluations and inform health policy decisions. REGISTRATION: The SLR protocol was registered in The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD420251040430).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».