Budget Impact Analysis of Impella CP
Budget impact
Cardiogenic shock
France
Impella CP®
Left-ventricular assist devices
Journal
Advances in therapy
ISSN: 1865-8652
Titre abrégé: Adv Ther
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8611864
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2022
03 2022
Historique:
received:
03
09
2021
accepted:
05
01
2022
pubmed:
25
1
2022
medline:
16
3
2022
entrez:
24
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Early detection and treatment of cardiogenic shock (CS) is crucial to avoid irreparable multiorgan damage and mortality. Impella CP A budget impact model was developed to compare the cost of introducing Impella CP with continuing IABP and VA-ECMO treatment from a Mandatory Health Insurance (MHI) perspective in France over a 5-year time horizon, with 700 patients with refractory CS assumed to be eligible for treatment per year. Costs associated with Impella CP and device-related complications for all interventions were captured and clinical input data were based on published sources. Scenario analyses were performed around key parameters. Introducing Impella CP was associated with cumulative cost savings of EUR 2.7 million over 5 years, versus continuing current clinical practice with IABP and VA-ECMO. Cost savings were achieved in every year of the analysis and driven by the lower incidence of device-related complications with Impella CP, with estimated 5-year cost savings of EUR 22.4 million due to avoidance of complications. Total cost savings of more than EUR 250,000 were projected in the first year of the analysis, which increased as the market share of Impella CP was increased. Scenario analyses indicated that the findings of the analysis were robust. Treatment with Impella CP in adult patients aged less than 75 years in a state of refractory CS following an MI was projected to lead to substantial cost savings from an MHI perspective in France, compared with continuing current clinical practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35067868
doi: 10.1007/s12325-022-02040-5
pii: 10.1007/s12325-022-02040-5
pmc: PMC8918169
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Pagination
1293-1309Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Zeymer U, Bueno H, Granger CB, et al. Acute Cardiovascular Care Association position statement for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a document of the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2020;9(2):183–97.
pubmed: 32114774
Baran DA, Grines CL, Bailey S, et al. SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock: this document was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS). Catheter Cardiovasc Inter. 2019;94:29–37.
Chioncel O, Parissis J, Mebazaa A, et al. Epidemiology, pathophysiology and contemporary management of cardiogenic shock—a position statement from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur J Heart Fail. 2020;22(8):1315–41 (Erratum in: Eur J Heart Fail. 2021; 23(2):345).
pubmed: 32469155
van Diepen S, Katz JN, Albert NM, et al. (American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research; and Mission: Lifeline) Contemporary management of cardiogenic shock: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2017;136(16):e232–68.
pubmed: 28923988
Thiele H, Ohman EM, Desch S, Eitel I, de Waha S. Management of cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(20):1223–30.
pubmed: 25732762
Aissaoui N, Puymirat E, Delmas C, et al. Trends in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Eur J Heart Fail. 2020;22(4):664–72.
pubmed: 32078218
Ollivier J, Fresselinat A, Seguy B, et al. The use of Impella 5.0 in refractory cardiogenic shock: a medico-economic report. Pharm J Medical Devices. 2019. https://www.euro-pharmat.com/la-revue-du-dm . Accessed 17 Mar 2020.
van Diepen S, Thiele H. An overview of international cardiogenic shock guidelines and application in clinical practice. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2019;25(4):365–70.
pubmed: 31107307
Bonello L, Delmas C, Schurtz G, et al. Mechanical circulatory support in patients with cardiogenic shock in intensive care units: a position paper of the “Unité de Soins Intensifs de Cardiologie” group of the French Society of Cardiology, endorsed by the “Groupe Athérome et Cardiologie Interventionnelle” of the French Society of Cardiology. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2018;111(10):601–12.
pubmed: 29903693
Stretch R, Sauer CM, Yuh DD, Bonde P. National trends in the utilization of short-term mechanical circulatory support: incidence, outcomes, and cost analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:1407.
pubmed: 25277608
Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann F-J, et al. Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(14):1287–96.
pubmed: 22920912
Unverzagt S, Buerke M, de Waha A, et al. Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation [IABP] for myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;3:CD007398.
Abiomed. Impella CP. 2020. https://www.abiomed.com/impella/impella-cp . Accessed 5 Nov 2020.
Vasea H, Christensen S, Chistiansen A, et al. The Impella CP device for acute mechanical circulatory support in refractory cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2017;112:70–4.
Tepper S, Masood MF, Garcia MB, et al. Left ventricular unloading by Impella device versus surgical vent during extracorporeal life support. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;104(3):861–7.
pubmed: 28347536
Jauw KD, Remmelink M, Baan J, et al. Left ventricular unloading in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients is safe and feasible and provides acute and sustained left ventricular recovery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51:1044.
Engstrom AE, Cocchieri R, Driessen AH, et al. The Impella 2.5 and 5.0 devices for ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients presenting with severe and profound cardiogenic shock: the Academic Medical Center intensive care unit experience. Crit Care Med. 2011;39:2072.
pubmed: 21602670
Seyfarth M, Sibbing D, Bauer I, et al. A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device versus intra-aortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock caused by myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:1584.
pubmed: 19007597
Ouweneel DM, Engstrom AE, Sjauw KD, et al. Experience from a randomized controlled trial with Impella 2.5 versus IABP in STEMI patients with cardiogenic pre-shock. Lessons learned from the IMPRESS in STEMI trial. Int J Cardiol. 2016;202:894.
pubmed: 26476989
Karami M, den Uil CA, Ouweneel DM, et al. Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock from acute myocardial infarction: Impella CP/5.0 versus ECMO. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2020;9(2):164–72.
pubmed: 31353918
Chevreul K, Berg Brigham K, Durand-Zaleski I, Hernandez-Quevedo C. France: health system review. Health Syst Transit. 2015;17(3):1–21.
pubmed: 26766545
den Uil CA, Akin S, Jewbali LS, et al. Short-term mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to durable left ventricular assist device implantation in refractory cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017;52(1):14–25.
Cheng R, Hachamovitch R, Kittleson M, et al. Complications of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for treatment of cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest: a meta-analysis of 1,866 adult patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;97(2):610–6.
pubmed: 24210621
Mejean C. Prise en charge du choc cardiogénique à la phase aiguë de l’infarctus du myocarde: Etude rétrospective, portant sur 50 cas [Management of cardiogenic shock in the acute phase of myocardial infarction: Retrospective study, covering 50 cases]. Sciences du Vivant [q-bio]. 2001. hal-01733636. Available at: https://hal.univ-lorraine.fr/hal-01733636/document Accessed 21 Jan 2022.
Ghabri S, Autin E, Poullié AI, Josselin JM. The French National Authority for Health (HAS) guidelines for conducting budget impact analyses (BIA). Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(4):407–17.
pubmed: 29247437
Sullivan SD, Mauskopf JA, Augustovski F, et al. Budget impact analysis-principles of good practice: report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force. Value Health. 2014;17(1):5–14.
pubmed: 24438712
Agence Technique de l’Information sur l’Hospitalisation. Formats PMSI 2016. 2017. https://www.atih.sante.fr/formats-pmsi-2016 . Accessed 15 Dec 2020.
Delmas C, Elbaz M, Bonello L, et al. Place de l’assistance circulatoire dans le choc cardiogénique en France en 2018: revue de la littérature et perspectives. Méd Intensive Réa. 2018;27:97–113.
Agence Technique de l’Information sur l’Hospitalisation. Guide d’utilisation: Valorisation de l’activité 2018 par les tariffs 2018 et par les tariffs 2019. https://www.atih.sante.fr/sites/default/files/public/content/3592/guide_dutilisation_-_valorisation_de_lactivite_2018_par_les_tarifs_2018_et_tarifs_2019.pdf . Accessed 20 Feb 2020.
Liste des Produits et Prestations Remboursables. https://www.ameli.fr/sites/default/files/Documents/615994/document/lpp.pdf . Accessed 18 Mar 2020.
Halimi S, Benhamou PY, Charras H. Le cout du pied diabetique. https://www.fmc-tourcoing.org/PROGRAMME_FMC/DIABETE_10_00/DIABETEFMI/cout-pied-3.html . Accessed 6 Nov 2020.
l'Assistance publique – Hôpitaux de Paris [Public Assistance—Hospital of Paris]. Le dispositif Cardiohelp®, un appareil ECMO portatif ? [The Cardiohelp® device, a portable ECMO device?]. 2014. http://cedit.aphp.fr/hospital-based-hta-levaluation-de-technologies-de-sante-a-lhopital/point-sur-le-dispositif-cardiohelp-appareil-ecmo-portatif/ . Accessed 8 Jun 2021.
Puymirat E, Fagon JY, Aegerter P, et al. (Collège des Utilisateurs de Bases de données en Réanimation; CUB-Réa Group [Intensive Care Database User Group]). Cardiogenic shock in intensive care units: evolution of prevalence, patient profile, management and outcomes, 1997–2012. Eur J Heart Fail. 2017;19(2):192–200.
pubmed: 27709722
Rab T, Ratanapo S, Kern KB, et al. Cardiac shock care centers: JACC review topic of the week. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72(16):1972–80.
pubmed: 30309475
Basir MB, Schreiber T, Dixon S, et al. Feasibility of early mechanical circulatory support in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: the Detroit cardiogenic shock initiative. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;91(3):454–61.
pubmed: 29266676
Hanson ID, Tagami T, Mando R, et al. SCAI shock classification in acute myocardial infarction: insights from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;96(6):1137–42.
pubmed: 32672388
Esposito ML, Jablonski J, Kras A, Krasney S, Kapur NK. Maximum level of mobility with axillary deployment of the Impella 5.0 is associated with improved survival. Int J Artif Organs. 2018;41(4):236–9.
pubmed: 29637832
Sassard T, Scalabre A, Bonnefoy E, Sanchez I, Farhat F, Jegaden O. The right axillary artery approach for the Impella Recover LP 5.0 microaxial pump. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;85(4):1468–77.
pubmed: 18355563
El Sibai R, Bachir R, El Sayed M. Outcomes in cardiogenic shock patients with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use: a Matched Cohort Study in Hospitals across the United States. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:2428648.
pubmed: 29789779
pmcid: 5896328
Lemor A, Dehkordi SHH, Basir MB, et al. Impella versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2020;21(12):1465–71.
pubmed: 32605901
Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS). IMPELLA CP, dispositif d’assistance mécanique électrique percutanée, à flux axial, monoventriculaire gauche, de courte durée [IMPELLA CP, percutaneous mechanical electrical assistance device, axial flow, left single-ventricular, short duration]. Commission nationale d'evaluation des dispositifs medicaux et des technologies de sante [National Commission for the Evaluation of Medical Devices and Health Technologies]. 2020. https://www.has-sante.fr/upload/docs/evamed/CNEDIMTS-5861_IMPELLA%20CP_11_mars_2020_(5861)_avis.pdf . Accessed 9 Jun 2021.
Udesen NJ, Møller JE, Lindholm MG, et al. Rationale and design of DanGer shock: Danish-German cardiogenic shock trial. Am Heart J. 2019;214:60–8.
pubmed: 31176289
Schurtz G, Rousse N, Saura O, et al. IMPELLA ® or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for left ventricular dominant refractory cardiogenic shock. J Clin Med. 2021;10(4):759.
pubmed: 33672792
pmcid: 7918655
Fagot J, Bouisset F, Bonello L, et al. Early evaluation of patients on axial flow pump support for refractory cardiogenic shock is associated with left ventricular recovery. J Clin Med. 2020;9(12):4130.
pmcid: 7767477
Tongers J, Sieweke J-T, Kühn C, et al. Early escalation of mechanical circulatory support stabilizes and potentially rescues patients in refractory cardiogenic shock. Circ Heart Fail. 2020;13(3):e005853.
pubmed: 32164431
Moazzami K, Dolmatova EV, Cocke TP, et al. Left ventricular mechanical support with the Impella during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J Tehran Heart Cent. 2017;12(1):11–4.
pubmed: 28469686
pmcid: 5409943
Schiller P, Vikholm P, Hellgren L. Experimental venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation induces left ventricular dysfunction. ASAIO J. 2016;62(5):518–24.
pubmed: 27195745
Ostadal P, Mlcek M, Kruger A, et al. Increasing venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation flow negatively affects left ventricular performance in a porcine model of cardiogenic shock. J Transl Med. 2015;13:266.
pubmed: 26275717
pmcid: 4537539
Rupprecht L, Flörchinger B, Schopka S, et al. Cardiac decompression on extracorporeal life support: a review and discussion of the literature. ASAIO J. 2013;59(6):547–53.
pubmed: 24172259
Curran J, Burkhoff D, Kloner RA. Beyond reperfusion: acute ventricular unloading and cardioprotection during myocardial infarction. J Cardiovasc Transl Res. 2019;12(2):95–106.
pubmed: 30671717
pmcid: 6497619
Stone GW, Selker HP, Thiele H, et al. Relationship between infarct size and outcomes following primary PCI: patient-level analysis from 10 randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67(14):1674–83.
pubmed: 27056772
den Uil CA, Jewbali LS, Heeren MJ, Constantinescu AA, Van Mieghem NM, Reis Miranda DD. Isolated left ventricular failure is a predictor of poor outcome in patients receiving veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Eur J Heart Fail. 2017;19(Suppl 2):104–9.
Danial P, Hajage D, Nguyen LS, et al. Percutaneous versus surgical femoro-femoral veno-arterial ECMO: a propensity score matched study. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44:2153–61.
pubmed: 30430207
Bonello L, Delmas C, Gaubert M, Schurtz G, Ouattara A, Roubille F. Trials of mechanical circulatory support with percutaneous axial flow pumps in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: mission impossible? Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2020;113(6–7):448–60.
pubmed: 32291187
Lamarche Y, Cheung A, Ignaszewski A, et al. Comparative outcomes in cardiogenic shock patients managed with Impella microaxial pump or extracorporeal life support. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;142(1):60–5.
pubmed: 20880553
Ouweneel DM, de Brabander J, Karami M, et al. Real-life use of left ventricular circulatory support with Impella in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction: 12 years AMC experience. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2019;8(4):338–49.
pubmed: 30403366