Cost‐Effectiveness of the Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator:
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy is indicated for patients at risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD) due to ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF). The high relative cost of therapy with the ICD versus antiarrhythmic drugs has raised questions regarding its cost-effectiveness. To address these questions, we review the literature on ICD cost-effectiveness. METHODS AND RESULTS: MEDLINE and other databases were searched for articles published since 1980 reporting original data on the cost-effectiveness of ICD versus drug therapy for patients at risk for SCD. Data on costs and life-years were abstracted and studies grouped into decision analysis models and trial-based analyses. Cost-effectiveness ratios were inflated to 2002 US dollars. Thirteen economic studies were included in this review: 6 decision-analytic models, 4 economic analysis alongside randomized controlled trials, and 1 observational study. Two additional studies evaluated the cost-effectiveness of ICDs stratified by mortality risk. Studies varied in time horizon, and in all but one study ICD therapy was more costly than drug therapy. Early models assumed larger survival benefits than were observed in subsequent trials; therefore, ICDs appeared to be more cost-effective (i.e., US dollars 28000-US dollars 60000 per life-year gained). Three large clinical trial-based studies estimated that the cost per life-year gained was between US dollars 30181 and US dollars 185000. Stratified analyses show that patients at higher risk for mortality due to structural heart disease (e.g., left ventricular ejection fraction <35%) benefit more from ICD therapy, resulting in lower cost-effectiveness ratios. CONCLUSION: ICD therapy continues to evolve with changing methods of implantation and improving technology. Current evidence suggests that ICDs may be a cost-effective option in patients at high risk for VT/VF. The cost-effectiveness of ICD therapy for primary and secondary prevention of SCD depends upon patient characteristics that influence their prior risk of mortality. Further research on patient selection criteria and the measurement of health-related quality of life is required.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".