ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To determine the cost-effectiveness of natriuretic peptide (NP) testing and specialist outreach in patients with acute heart failure (AHF) residing off the cardiology ward. METHODS: We used a Markov model to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for patients presenting to hospital with suspected AHF. We examined diagnostic workup with and without the NP test in suspected new cases, and we examined the impact of specialist heart failure outreach in all suspected cases. Inputs for the model were derived from systematic reviews, the UK national heart failure audit, randomized controlled trials, expert consensus from a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline development group, and a national online survey. The main benefit from specialist care (cardiology ward and specialist outreach) was the increased likelihood of discharge on disease-modifying drugs for people with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, which improve mortality and reduce re-admissions due to worsened heart failure (associated with lower utility). Costs included diagnostic investigations, admissions, pharmacological therapy, and follow-up heart failure care. RESULTS: NP testing and specialist outreach are both higher cost, higher QALY, cost-effective strategies (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £11,656 and £2,883 per QALY gained, respectively). Combining NP and specialist outreach is the most cost-effective strategy. This result was robust to both univariate deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: NP testing for the diagnostic workup of new suspected AHF is cost-effective. The use of specialist heart failure outreach for inpatients with AHF residing off the cardiology ward is cost-effective. Both interventions will help improve outcomes for this high-risk group.
Subject(s)
Heart Failure/diagnosis , Models, Economic , Natriuretic Peptides/blood , Quality-Adjusted Life Years , Acute Disease , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Female , Heart Failure/economics , Heart Failure/therapy , Hospitalization/economics , Humans , Male , Markov Chains , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Ventricular Dysfunction/economics , Ventricular Dysfunction/mortality , Ventricular Dysfunction/therapyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) elicits a number of cardiovascular perturbations that could lead acutely or chronically to increased ventricular ectopy in patients with heart failure (HF). We tested the hypothesis that treatment of OSA with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in patients with HF would reduce the frequency of ventricular premature beats (VPBs) during sleep in association with reduced sympathetic nervous system activity. METHODS: Following optimisation of medical treatment, 18 HF patients with OSA and >10 VPBs per hour of sleep were randomised to a control group (n = 8) or a treatment group who received CPAP (n = 10). The frequency of VPBs and urinary norepinephrine (noradrenaline) concentrations during total sleep time were determined at baseline and after 1 month. RESULTS: Control patients did not experience any significant changes in apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI), mean nocturnal O(2) saturation, or the frequency of VPBs. In contrast, there was a significant reduction in AHI (p<0.001), an increase in minimum O(2) saturation (p = 0.05), a reduction in urinary norepinephrine concentrations (p = 0.009), and a 58% reduction in the frequency of VPBs during total sleep (from mean (SE) 170 (65) to 70 (28) per hour, p = 0.011) after 1 month of CPAP treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HF, treatment of co-existing OSA by CPAP reduces the frequency of VPBs during sleep. These data suggest that reductions in VPBs and other ventricular arrhythmias through treatment of OSA might improve the prognosis in patients with HF.
Subject(s)
Arrhythmias, Cardiac/therapy , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure/methods , Heart Failure/complications , Sleep Apnea, Obstructive/complications , Ventricular Dysfunction/therapy , Arrhythmias, Cardiac/economics , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Polysomnography , Ventricular Dysfunction/economicsABSTRACT
Recent studies have shown that ACE inhibitors reduce morbidity and mortality after myocardial infarction (MI). While these trials have obvious clinical implications, the widespread introduction of a new treatment for a condition as common as MI also has clear cost implications. The results of the post-MI studies with ACE inhibitors suggest that restricted use of treatment-in high-risk patients-is likely to be most cost effective, whereas treatment of all MI survivors, many of whom are at low risk, will be least cost effective. An approach somewhere in between may maximise clinical benefit at an acceptable cost. Economic analysis may help in deciding how these drugs might be best used after MI. We have conducted a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of the Survival and Ventricular Enlargement (SAVE) study, which reported the benefit of ACE inhibitors in intermediate-risk patients. Assuming all MI survivors require measurement of left ventricular function before selection for treatment (the approach used in the SAVE study), the incremental cost per life-year gained (LYG), over 4 years, using prophylactic captopril is approximately 10000 pounds sterling (Pounds) [1994 to 1995 values]. The cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is similar. These incremental cost per LYG and cost per QALY ratios compare favourably with other commonly used symptomatic and prophylactic treatments, and argue for extending post-MI use of ACE inhibitors to intermediate-as well as high-risk patients.
