ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for primary prevention in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a Markov model using JROAD-DPC cost data in Japan.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) reduce the risk of sudden cardiac death caused by ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation in patients with ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. However, the cost-effectiveness of ICD implantation in Japanese patients with heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ICD implantation in a Japanese setting. Methods: A Markov model with 1-month cycles was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of ICD implantation compared with conventional medical therapy. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of a public healthcare payer over a 30-year time horizon. Scenario analyses accounting for waning treatment effects were performed, as along with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). Results: In the base-case analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was US $29,838 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). In the scenario analyses, the ICER increased to US $40,205 and $36,199 per QALY when the treatment effect began to wane after 5 and 10 years, respectively. ICD efficacy and battery longevity had the greatest influence on the ICER. PSA showed that the ICER per QALY ranged from US $19,472 at the 2.5th percentile to US $83,365 at the 97.5th percentile. Conclusions: In the Japanese healthcare context, ICD implantation for primary prevention was found to be more cost-effective than the reference value. However, depending on several assumptions, the ICER may exceed the reference value. Sensitivity analyses highlighted the significant impact of the hazard ratio and battery longevity on cost-effectiveness. Further research is needed to identify subpopulations with significantly different cost-effectiveness outcomes.
Indexed as
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.