Economic evaluation of remote monitoring of patients with an implantable cardiac defibrillator (REMOTE-CIED study).

Autor:	de Graaf G; Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands., Timmermans I; Department of Cardiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.; Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, CoRPS - Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands., Meine M; Department of Cardiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands., Alings M; Department of Cardiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands., Pedersen SS; Department of Psychology, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.; Department of Cardiology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark., Mabo P; Department of Cardiology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Rennes, France., Zitron E; Department of Cardiology, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany., Redekop K; Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands., Versteeg H; Department of Cardiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.; Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, CoRPS - Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Journal of telemedicine and telecare [J Telemed Telecare] 2024 Aug; Vol. 30 (7), pp. 1173-1185. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Oct 17.
DOI:	10.1177/1357633X221129176
Abstrakt:	Introduction: Remote patient monitoring (RPM) of heart failure patients has the potential to reduce healthcare resource use and costs, but current evidence has been inconclusive. This study aims assess the impact of RPM of heart failure patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator on medical resource use, direct medical costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and travel time of patients, and to estimate its commercial headroom in the Netherlands and Germany. Methods: Data from the REMOTE-CIED randomized controlled trial were used to calculate differences in length of hospital stay, outpatient clinic visits, telephone consults, emergency room visits, and travel time between patients on in-clinic follow-up and RPM in the Netherlands, Germany, and France. Incremental cardiac-related healthcare costs and QALYs were calculated and used to calculate the commercial headroom of RPM in the Netherlands and Germany. The impact of imputation, parameter, and case-mix uncertainty on these outcomes was explored using probabilistic analysis. Results: Length of hospitalization, number of unscheduled admissions, and number of outpatient visits were lower in the remote monitoring group in all three countries. Number of hospital admissions was higher, and number of calls was lower in the Netherlands and Germany but not in France. Costs were lower in both the Netherlands (-€1041, 95% confidence interval (CI): -€3308, €1005) and Germany (-€2865, 95% CI: -€7619, €1105), while incremental effectiveness differed: -0.003 (95% CI: -0.114, 0.107) QALY in the Netherlands and +0.086 (95% CI: -0.083, 0.256) in Germany. Commercial headroom was estimated at €881 (95% CI: -€5430, €7208) in the Netherlands and €5005 (95% CI: -€1339, €11,960) in Germany. Discussion: RPM was found to result in reduced medical resource use and travel time. Whether it is cost saving or cost effective strongly depends on the costs of remote monitoring. Trial Registration Number and Trial Register: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01691586. Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu