Cost-utility analysis of direct ventricular assist device vs double bridges to heart transplantation in patients with refractory heart failure

ObjectThis study compared the cost-utility of direct ventricular assist device (VAD) vs double bridges, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) before VAD, to heart transplantation in patients with refractory heart failure. Materials and MethodsFrom a health payer perspective, a Markov model was developed. The cycle length was 1month, and the time horizon was a lifetime. Probabilities and direct cost data were calculated from a nationwide claim database. Utility inputs were adopted from published sources. The utility was expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Both costs and utility were discounted by an annual rate of 3%. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the stability of the model. ResultsThe direct VAD group had less lifetime costs (USD 95910 vs USD 129516) but higher lifetime QALYs than the double bridges group (1.73 vs 0.89). The sensitivity analysis revealed that the direct VAD group consistently had lower cost and higher QALYs during all variations in model parameters. The probability that direct VAD was cost-effective exceeded 75% at any levels of willing-to-pay. ConclusionFrom a health insurance payer perspective, direct VAD bridge to heart transplantation appeared to be more cost-effective than double bridges in patients with refractory heart failure.