Few studies have confirmed the cost-saving of telemonitoring of users with pacemakers (PMs). The purpose of this controlled, non-randomised, non-masked clinical trial was to perform an economic assessment of telemonitoring (TM) of users with PMs and check whether TM offers a cost-utility alternative to conventional follow-up in hospital.
Methods
Eighty-two patients implanted with an internet-based transmission PM were selected to receive either conventional follow-up in hospital (n = 52) or TM (n = 30) from their homes. The data were collected during 12 months while patients were being monitored. The economic assessment of the PONIENTE study was performed as per the perspectives of National Health Service (NHS) and patients. A cost-utility analysis was conducted to measure whether the TM of patients with PMs is cost-effective in terms of costs per gained quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).
Results
There was a significant cost-saving for participants in the TM group in comparison with the participants in the conventional follow-up group. From the NHS’s perspective, the patients in the TM group gained 0.09 QALYs more than the patients in the conventional follow-up group over 12 months, with a cost saving of 57.64% (€46.51 versus €109.79, respectively; p < 0.001) per participant per year. In-office visits were reduced by 52.49% in the TM group. The costs related to the patient perspective were lower in the TM group than in the conventional follow-up group (€31.82 versus €73.48, respectively; p < 0.005). The costs per QALY were 61.68% higher in the in-office monitoring group.
Discussion
The cost-utility analysis performed in the PONIENTE study showed that the TM of users with PMs appears to be a significant cost-effective alternative to conventional follow-up in hospital.
López-VillegasACatalán-MatamorosDRobles-MussoEet al.Comparative effectiveness of remote monitoring of people with cardiac Pacemaker versus conventional: Quality of life at the 6 months. Rev Esp Salud Pública2015; 89(2): 149–158.
2.
WilkoffBLAuricchioABrugadaJet al.HRS/EHRA expert consensus on the monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs): description of techniques, indications, personnel, frequency and ethical considerations. Heart Rhythm2008; 5(6): 907–925.
3.
MaboPVictorFBazinPet al.A randomized trial of long-term remote monitoring of pacemaker recipients (The COMPAS trial). Eur Heart J2012; 33: 1105–1111.
4.
CroninEVarmaN. Remote monitoring of cardiovascular implanted electronic devices: a paradigm shift for the 21st century. Expert Rev Med Devices2012; 9(4): 367–376.
5.
FolinoAFBredaRCalzavaraPet al.In-home controls of pacemakers in debilitated elderly patients. Geriatr Gerontol Int2012; 12: 30–35.
6.
FolinoABredaRCalzavaraPet al.Remote follow-up of pacemakers in a selected population of debilitated elderly patients. Europace2013; 15(3): 382–387.
7.
López-VillegasACatalán-MatamorosDRobles-MussoEet al.Workload, time and costs of the informal cares in patients with tele-monitoring of pacemakers. The PONIENTE study. Clin Res Cardiol2016; 105(4): 307–313.
8.
AmalaATurnerTGrettonMet al.A systematic review of telemonitoring for the management of heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail2003; 5: 583–590.
9.
López-VillegasACatalán-MatamorosDRobles-MussoEet al.Effectiveness of pacemaker tele-monitoring on quality of life, functional capacity, event detection and workload. The PONIENTE trial. Geriatr Gerontol Int2016; 16(11): 1188–1195.
10.
Guédon-MoreauLLacroixDSadoulNet al.ECOST trial Investigators. A randomized study of remote follow-up of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: safety and efficacy report of the ECOST trial. Eur Heart J2013; 34: 605–614.
11.
RicciRPMorichelliLSantiniM. Home monitoring remote control of pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients in clinical practice: impact on medical management and health-care resource utilization. Europace2008; 10: 164–170.
12.
HalimiFCantuF. Remote monitoring for active cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: a European survey. Europace2010; 12: 1778–1780.
13.
WinkelmayerWCCohenDJBergerMLet al.Comparing cost-utility analyses in cardiovascular medicine. In: WeintraubWS (ed). Cardiovascular Health Care Economics, Totowa: Humana Press, 2003, pp. 329–356.
14.
ZanaboniPLandolinaMMarzegalliMet al.Cost-utility analysis of the EVOLVO study on remote monitoring for heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res2013; 15(5): e106–e106.
15.
BurriHSticherlingCWrightDet al.Cost-consequence analysis of daily continuous remote monitoring of implantable cardiac defibrillator and resynchronization devices in the UK. Europace2013; 15(11): 1601–1608.
16.
Guédon-MoreauLLacroixDSadoulNet al.Costs of remote monitoring vs. ambulatory follow-ups of implanted cardioverter defibrillators in the randomized ECOST study. Europace2014; 16(8): 1181–1188.
17.
RicciRPVicentiniAD'OnofrioAet al.Economic analysis of remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices: results of the Health Economics Evaluation Registry for Remote Follow-up (TARIFF) study. Heart Rhythm2017; 14(1): 50–57.
18.
CapucciADe SimoneALuziMet al.Economic impact of remote monitoring after implantable defibrillators implantation in heart failure patients: an analysis from the EFFECT study. Europace2017; 19(9): 1493–1499.
19.
DarioCDelisePGubianLet al.Large controlled observational study on remote monitoring of pacemakers and implantable cardiac defibrillators: a clinical, economic, and organizational evaluation. Interact J Med Res2016; 5(1): e4–e4.
20.
RaatikainenMJUusimaaPvan GinnekenMMet al.Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients: a safe, time-saving, and cost-effective means for follow-up. Europace2008; 10(10): 1145–1151.
21.
UrquhartACAntoniottiNMBergRL. Telemedicine – an efficient and cost-effective approach in parathyroid surgery. Laryngoscope2011; 121(7): 1422–1425.
22.
World Health Organization. Essential medicines and health products information portal: introduction to drug utilization research, apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Js4876e/ (2003, accessed 19 January 2018).
23.
PerlSStieglerPRotmanBet al.Socio-economic effects and cost saving potential of remote patient monitoring (SAVE-HM trial). Int J Cardiol2013; 169: 402–407.
24.
HalimiFClémentyJAttuelPet al.Optimized post-operative surveillance of permanent pacemakers by home monitoring: the OEDIPE trial. Europace2008; 10: 1392–1399.
25.
López-VillegasACatalán-MatamorosDMartín-SaboridoCet al.A systematic review of economic evaluations of pacemaker telemonitoring systems. Rev Esp Cardiol2016; 69(2): 125–133.
26.
RicciRPVicentiniAD'OnofrioAet al.Impact of in-clinic follow-up visits in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators: demographic and socioeconomic analysis of the TARIFF study population. J Interv Card Electrophysiol2013; 38(2): 101–106.
27.
HofmannRVöllerHNagelsKet al.First outline and baseline data of a randomized, controlled multicenter trial to evaluate the health economic impact of home telemonitoring in chronic heart failure – CardioBBEAT. Trials2015; 16: 343.
Boletín Oficial de la Junta de Andalucía. RESOLUCIÓN de 25 de enero de 2008, de la Empresa Pública del Hospital de Poniente de Almería, por la que se publican adjudicaciones definitivas en su ámbito, www.juntadeandalucia.es/boja/2008/32/33 (2008, accessed 28 March 2016).
Boletín Oficial de la Junta de Andalucía. ORDEN de 11 de julio de 2006, por la que se actualizan las cuantías de determinadas indemnizaciones por razón del servicio, www.juntadeandalucia.es/boja/2006/143/d13.pdf (2006, accessed 12 December 2016).
BadiaXRosetMMontserratSet al.La versión española del EuroQol: descripción y aplicaciones. Med Clin1999; 112(Suppl 1): 79–86.
35.
EuroQol Group. EuroQol. A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy1990; 16: 199–208.
36.
PangHCampbellDHopmanWet al.Effectiveness and feasibility of a transtelephonic monitoring program: implications for a time of crisis. Int J Cardiol2010; 145(3): 529–530.
37.
MorganJMKittSGillJet al.Remote management of heart failure using implantable electronic devices. Eur Heart J2017; 38(30): 2352–2360.
38.
BorianiGDa CostaAQuesadaAet al.Effects of remote monitoring on clinical outcomes and use of healthcare resources in heart failure patients with biventricular defibrillators: results of the MORE-CARE multicentre randomized controlled trial. Eur J Heart Fail2017; 19(3): 416–425.
39.
ZabelMMüller-RiemenschneiderFChristoph GellerFJet al.Rationale and design of the MONITOR-ICD study: a randomized comparison of economic and clinical effects of automatic remote MONITORing versus control in patients with Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators. Am Heart J2014; 168(4): 430–437.
40.
NeytMStroobandtSObynCet al.Cost-effectiveness of cardiac resynchronisation therapy for patients with moderate-to-severe heart failure: a lifetime Markov model. BMJ Open2011; 1(2): e000276–e000276.
41.
CrossleyGHBoyleAVitenseAet al.The CONNECT (Clinical Evaluation of Remote Notification to Reduce Time to Clinical Decision) Trial: the value of wireless remote monitoring with automatic clinician alerts. J Am Coll Cardiol2011; 57: 1182–1189.
42.
ChangSDavidsonPMNewtonPJet al.Composite outcome measures in a pragmatic clinical trial of chronic heart failure management: a comparative assessment. Int J Cardiol2015; 185: 62–68.
43.
PocockSJGershBJ. Do current clinical trials meet society’s needs?: a critical review of recent evidence. J Am Coll Cardiol2014; 64: 1615–1628.
