Economic analysis of remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices: Results of the Health Economics Evaluation Registry for Remote Follow-up (TARIFF) study

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Renato Pietro Ricci ; MD^* ; ^{renatopietroricci@tin.it} ; Alfredo Vicentini ; MD^&dagger ; ; Antonio D&rsquo ; Onofrio ; MD^&Dagger ; ; Antonio Sagone ; MD^§ ; ; Giovanni Rovaris ; MD^║ ; Luigi Padeletti ; MD^¶ ; ; Loredana Morichelli ; MSN^* ; Antonio Fusco ; MD^&dagger ; ; Stefano De Vivo ; MD^&Dagger ; ; Leonida Lombardi ; MD^§ ; ; Alessandra Denaro ; PhD^# ; Annalisa Pollastrelli ; PhD^# ; Irene Colangelo ; PhD^** ; Massimo Santini ; MD^*
• 关键词：Telemedicine ; Remote monitoring ; Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator ; Reimbursement ; Cost-effectiveness
• 刊名：Heart Rhythm
• 出版年：2017
• 出版时间：January 2017
• 年：2017
• 卷：14
• 期：1
• 页码：50-57
• 全文大小：854 K
• 卷排序：14

文摘

Remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices has been demonstrated to improve outpatient clinic workflow and patient management. However, few data are available on the socioeconomic impact of RM.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the costs and benefits of RM compared with standard care (SC).MethodsWe used 12-month patient data from the Health Economics Evaluation Registry for Remote Follow-up (TARIFF) study (N = 209; RM: n = 102 (48.81%); SC: n = 107 (51.19%)). Cost comparison was made from 2 perspectives: the health care system (HCS) and patients. The use of health care resources was defined on the basis of hospital clinical folders. Out-of-pocket expenses were reported directly by patients.ResultsHCS perspective: The overall mean annual cost per patient in the SC group (€1044.89 ± €1990.47) was significantly higher than in the RM group (€482.87 ± €2488.10) (P < .0001), with a reduction of 53.87% being achieved in the RM group. The primary driver of cost reduction was the cost of cardiovascular hospitalizations (SC: €`886.67 ± €1979.13 vs RM: €432.34 ± €2488.10; P = .0030). Patient and caregiver perspective: The annual cost incurred by patients was significantly higher in the SC group than in the RM group (SC: €169.49 ± €189.50 vs RM: €56.87 ± €80.22; P < .0001). Patients’ quality-adjusted life-years were not significantly different between the groups. Provider perspective: The total number of inhospital device follow-up visits was reduced by 58.78% in the RM group.ConclusionRM of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is cost saving from the perspectives of the HCS, patients, and caregivers. Introducing appropriate reimbursements will make RM sustainable even for the provider, i.e. the hospitals which provide the service and encourage widespread adoption of RM.