Skip to main content
 
Notice: Users may be experiencing issues with displaying some pages on stanfordhealthcare.org. We are working closely with our technical teams to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. Thank you for your patience.
Stanford Health Care

Potential cost-effectiveness of prophylactic use of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator or amiodarone after myocardial infarction

Potential cost-effectiveness of prophylactic use of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator or amiodarone after myocardial infarction ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE Sanders, G. D., Hlatky, M. A., Every, N. R., McDonald, K. M., Heidenreich, P. A., Parsons, L. S., Owens, D. K. 2001; 135 (10): 870-883

Abstract

Clinical trials have shown that implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) improve survival in patients with sustained ventricular arrhythmias.To determine the efficacy necessary to make prophylactic ICD or amiodarone therapy cost-effective in patients with myocardial infarction.Markov model-based cost utility analysis.Survival, cardiac death, and inpatient costs were estimated on the basis of the Myocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention registry. Other data were derived from the literature.Patients with past myocardial infarction who did not have sustained ventricular arrhythmia.Lifetime.Societal.ICD or amiodarone compared with no treatment.Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, number needed to treat, and incremental cost-effectiveness.Compared with no treatment, ICD use led to the greatest QALYs and the highest expenditures. Amiodarone use resulted in intermediate QALYs and costs. To obtain acceptable cost-effectiveness thresholds (

View details for PubMedID 11712877