Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23722666›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2013

Cost-utility analysis of the EVOLVO study on remote monitoring for heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators: randomized controlled trial.

Paolo Zanaboni, Maurizio Landolina, Maurizio Marzegalli, Maurizio Lunati, Giovanni B Perego, Giuseppe Guenzati, Antonio Curnis, Sergio Valsecchi, Francesca Borghetti, Gabriella Borghi and 1 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00873899 (Evolution of Management Strategies of Heart Failure Patients With Implantable Defibrillators), which is not on this map. Cited by 45 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT00873899 unknown statusnot on this map

Evolution of Management Strategies of Heart Failure Patients With Implantable Defibrillators

TypeobservationalSponsorRegione LombardiaRan2008 to 2010Enrolled200ConditionsHeart Failure, Sudden Cardiac Death, Implantable DefibrillatorArmsThe Medtronic CareLink system (Minneapolis, MN, USA).
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Knowledge Update on the Economic Evaluation of Pacemaker Telemonitoring Systems.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Paolo ZanaboniNorwegian Centre for Integrated Care and Telemedicine, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway. paolo.zanaboni@telemed.no
Maurizio Landolina
Maurizio Marzegalli
Maurizio Lunati
Giovanni B Perego
Giuseppe Guenzati
Antonio Curnis
Sergio Valsecchi
Francesca Borghetti
Gabriella Borghi
Cristina Masella

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHeart failure patients with implantable defibrillators place a significant burden on health care systems. Remote monitoring allows assessment of device function and heart failure parameters, and may represent a safe, effective, and cost-saving method compared to conventional in-office follow-up.

objectiveWe hypothesized that remote device monitoring represents a cost-effective approach. This paper summarizes the economic evaluation of the Evolution of Management Strategies of Heart Failure Patients With Implantable Defibrillators (EVOLVO) study, a multicenter clinical trial aimed at measuring the benefits of remote monitoring for heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators.

methodsTwo hundred patients implanted with a wireless transmission-enabled implantable defibrillator were randomized to receive either remote monitoring or the conventional method of in-person evaluations. Patients were followed for 16 months with a protocol of scheduled in-office and remote follow-ups. The economic evaluation of the intervention was conducted from the perspectives of the health care system and the patient. A cost-utility analysis was performed to measure whether the intervention was cost-effective in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.

resultsOverall, remote monitoring did not show significant annual cost savings for the health care system (€1962.78 versus €2130.01; P=.80). There was a significant reduction of the annual cost for the patients in the remote arm in comparison to the standard arm (€291.36 versus €381.34; P=.01). Cost-utility analysis was performed for 180 patients for whom QALYs were available. The patients in the remote arm gained 0.065 QALYs more than those in the standard arm over 16 months, with a cost savings of €888.10 per patient. Results from the cost-utility analysis of the EVOLVO study show that remote monitoring is a cost-effective and dominant solution.

conclusionsRemote management of heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators appears to be cost-effective compared to the conventional method of in-person evaluations.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00873899; http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00873899 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6H0BOA29f).

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisDefibrillators, ImplantableHeart FailureHumansMonitoring, Physiologiccost-effectivenessheart failureimplantable defibrillatorstelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID23722666
PMCPMC3670725

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.