ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2025
Cost-Utility Analysis of LifeVest® in Post-Myocardial Infarction Patients at Risk of Sudden Cardiac Death in England.
Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Wearable cardioverter defibrillator for transient arrhythmic risk and sudden cardiac death prevention: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis.Open heart · 2025Pooled it
- Wearable Cardioverter-Defibrillator in Patients at Transient Risk of Sudden Cardiac Death: State of the Art and Contemporary Clinical Evidence.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Cost-utility analysis of the wearable cardioverter defibrillator in high-risk post-myocardial infarction patients in the Spanish healthcare system.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Sudden cardiac death in newly diagnosed non-ischaemic or ischaemic cardiomyopathy assessed with a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator: the German nationwide SCD-PROTECT study.European heart journal · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 35% are at increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) within the first months after a myocardial infarction (MI). The wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is an established, safe and effective solution which can protect patients from SCD during the first months after an MI, when the risk of SCD is at its peak. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of WCD combined with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) compared to GDMT alone, after MI in the English National Health Service (NHS).
methodsA multi-state Markov model, with a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients, was developed to evaluate WCD + GDMT compared with GDMT alone, over a lifetime time horizon. Model input parameters were obtained from the pivotal randomised controlled trial and literature. The outcomes were costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), discounted at 3.5% annually, with overall results presented as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).
resultsThe cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that WCD + GDMT is potentially a cost-effective option with an ICER of £23,024 per QALY gained, which is in the acceptable willingness to pay threshold (WTP) range of £20,000-£30,000 set by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England. Results of probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) indicated that WCD + GDMT has 89.3% and 23% probability of being cost-effective at WTP thresholds of £30,000 and £20,000, respectively.
conclusionsImplementation of WCD in patients post-MI is potentially a cost-effective use of resources for the NHS and improves clinical outcomes amongst adherent patients and in circumstances where implantable cardioverter defibrillators are not indicated by the guidelines.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.