A Varied Approach To Lvad Follow-Up Improves Cost-Effectiveness

M.M. Ahmed,P. Li,L.E. Meece,J. Bian,H. Shao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.HEALUN.2021.01.315

2021-01-01

Abstract:Purpose Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation has improved mortality and quality of life in end-stage HF. However, the optimal frequency of outpatient assessments to improve cost-effectiveness and potentially avert readmissions is unclear. Methods The readmission rate, cost of readmission, and follow-up visits were obtained via claims from the 2016-2017 IBM® MarketScan®Commercial Claims Databases. These databases contain de-identified patient claims data across the continuum of care (e.g., inpatient, outpatient, pharmacy) from large employers and health plans in the U.S. who provide private insurance coverage for their employees. Patients who received LVAD in 2016 and 2017 were identified and grouped into one of the two groups: The intervention group was intensivefollow-up (IFU) at 1 week, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and then every 3 months post-implant, which was compared to a control of less intensive follow-up (LIFU) at one month and then every 6 months. We used the Cox proportional hazard regression to compare the risk of readmission between IFU and LIFU at 3, 6, and 12 months. The health utilities associated with post LVAD with and without readmission were extracted through literature review. Results 193 and 156 patients were identified for IFU and LIFU groups, respectively. Patients with IFU were found to have a lower risk for readmission at 3 months (HR:0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.60-0.79), but this difference diminished over time at 6 (HR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.73-0.96), and 12 months (HR:0.94, 95% CI: 0.83-1.06). Results from our cost-effectiveness analysis indicate that the incremental net benefit of IFU, when compared with LIFU, increased when looking at a longer time window (3 month: $19616, 6 month $9257, 12 month $717, based on $50,000/ quality-adjusted life year) [Figure]. Conclusion An initial intensive follow-up strategy, followed by a period of de-escalation at the 6 month post-implant mark, maybe a more cost-effective strategy to provide follow-up care while not predisposing patients to a higher risk of readmission.