Clinical and economic implications of the multicenter automatic defibrillator implantation trial-II

Sana M. Al-Khatib, Kevin J. Anstrom, Eric L. Eisenstein, Eric D. Peterson, James G. Jollis, Daniel B. Mark, Yun Li, Christopher M. O'Connor, Linda K. Shaw, Robert M. Califf

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

23 Scopus citations


Background: The Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT)-II demonstrated that implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) save lives when used in patients with a history of myocardial infarction (MI) and an ejection fraction of 0.3 or less. Objective: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of implanting ICDs in patients who met MADIT-II eligibility criteria and were enrolled in the Duke Cardiovascular Database between 1 January 1986 and 31 December 2001. Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis. Data Sources: Published literature, databases owned by Duke University Medical Center, and Medicare data. Target Population: Adults with a history of MI and an ejection fraction of 0.3 or less. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Societal. Interventions: ICD therapy versus conventional medical therapy. Outcomes Measures: Cost per life-year gained and incremental cost-effectiveness. Results: Compared with conventional medical therapy, ICDs are projected to result in an increase of 1.80 discounted years in life expectancy and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $50 500 per life-year gained. Cost-effectiveness varied dramatically with changes in time horizon: The cost-effectiveness ratio increased to $67 800 per life-year gained, $79 900 per life-year gained, $100 000 per life-year gained, $167 900 per life-year gained, and $367 200 per life-year gained for 15-year, 12-year, 9-year, 6-year, and 3-year time horizons, respectively. Changing the frequency of follow-up visits, complication rates, and battery replacements had less of an effect on the cost-effectiveness ratios than reducing the cost of ICD placement and leads. Limitations: The study was limited by the completeness of the data, referral bias, difference in medical therapy between the Duke cohort and the MADIT-II cohort, and not addressing potential upgrades to biventricular devices. Conclusions: The economic expense of defibrillator implantation in all patients who meet MADIT-II eligibility criteria is substantial. However, in the range of survival benefit observed in MADIT-II, ICD therapy for these patients is economically attractive by conventional standards.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)593-600
Number of pages8
JournalAnnals of internal medicine
Issue number8
StatePublished - Apr 19 2005
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine


Dive into the research topics of 'Clinical and economic implications of the multicenter automatic defibrillator implantation trial-II'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this