Automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: Is early implantation cost-effective?

AbstractThe evaluation of survivors of sudden cardiac death with serial electrophysiologic studies involves a lengthy and expensive hospitalization, especially when an automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator is ultimately necessary. The cost efficacy of this conventional approach was therefore compared with direct implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator after the first electrophysiologic study.Thirty-two survivors of sudden death who had inducible ventricular tachycardia during their initial electrophysiologic study underwent serial drug trials. At discharge 12 (37%) were taking an antiarrhythmic drug found to prevent induction of ventricular tachycardia and 20 underwent cardioverter-defibrillator implantation after serial drug trials proved ineffective. The average length of hospitalization for this group that had undergone serial drug testing was 20.2 ± 9.3 days at an average cost of $48,900 ± $31,600. Seven survivors of sudden death had no inducible ventricular tachycardia during their initial electrophysiologic study and underwent direct cardioverter-defibrillator implantation. Their average length of hospitalization was 12.6 ± 6.2 days at an average cost of $40,400 ± $8,300.It is concluded that automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation as an early intervention is not more costly and indeed may be cost-effective compared with therapy guided by serial electrophysiologic testing. As antitachycardia devices become more versatile, long lived and easier to implant, earlier implantation is likely to compare even more favorably with drug therapy