ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Cost-utility analysis of the wearable cardioverter defibrillator in high-risk post-myocardial infarction patients in the Spanish healthcare system.
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.
- Wearable Cardioverter-Defibrillator in Patients at Transient Risk of Sudden Cardiac Death: State of the Art and Contemporary Clinical Evidence.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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
Introduction: Patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction after myocardial infarction (MI) remain at increased risk of sudden cardiac death during the early post-MI period, before implantable cardioverter defibrillator eligibility is confirmed. The wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) offers temporary protection during this vulnerable interval within post-MI care. We evaluated the cost-utility of WCD therapy plus guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) vs. GDMT alone from the Spanish healthcare system perspective. Methods: A cost-utility analysis used a Markov state-transition model with monthly cycles and a lifetime horizon for a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 post-MI patients with left ventricular ejection fraction 35% or less at discharge. Early mortality inputs were based on the as-treated VEST analysis; longer-term risks and utilities came from published sources. Direct medical costs used Spanish sources (2025 euros). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted, including a scenario analysis using per-protocol effectiveness estimates from the VEST trial. Results: WCD plus GDMT was associated with projected gains of 0.53 life years and 0.43 quality-adjusted life years (QALYS) vs. GDMT alone (12.83 vs. 12.30 life years; 9.59 vs. 9.16 QALYs). Total lifetime costs were €113,290 vs. €102,032, giving incremental costs of €11,259 and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €26,145 per QALY gained, below the €30,000 threshold. The probability of cost-effectiveness was 78.3% for patients during the early post-MI period. Conclusions: In Spain, temporary WCD use alongside GDMT after MI shows potential to improve health outcomes at an incremental cost that falls within commonly cited willingness-to-pay thresholds. These findings support adoption of WCD therapy for patients at transiently high risk of sudden cardiac death, while highlighting the importance of appropriate patient selection and adherence in clinical practice.
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.