Manchester Heart Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2019 Jan 2;14(1):e0206611. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206611. eCollection 2019.
There are limited reports outlining the financial cost of treating cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection outside the United States. This study aimed to determine the average treatment cost of CIED infection in a large UK tertiary referral centre and compared costs of different treatment pathways that are recognised in the management of CIED infection (early versus delayed re-implantation).
We retrospectively analysed cost and length of stay (LOS) data for consecutive patients undergoing infected CIED extraction with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-D [with defibrillator], CRT-P [with pacemaker]), implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and permanent pacemakers (PPMs).
Between January 2013 and March 2015, complete data was available for 84 patients (18 [21.4%] CRT-D, 24 [28.6%] ICDs and 42 [50.0%] PPMs). When all cases were considered the cost of infection ranged from £5,139 (PPM) to £24,318 (CRT-D). Considering different treatment strategies; 41 (48.8%) underwent CIED extraction and re-implantation during the same admission (early re-implant strategy (ER). 43 (51.2%) underwent extraction, but were then discharged home to be re-admitted for day-case re-implantation (delayed re-implant strategy (DR)). Median LOS was significantly shorter in DR compared to ER (5.0 vs. 18.0 days, p<0.001). The total cost of CIED infection episode was similar for both treatment strategies (median £14,241.48 vs. £14,741.70 including wearable defibrillator (Lifevest) and outpatient antibiotics costs, ER vs. DR; p = 0.491).
CIED infections are expensive and associated with significant health-economic burden. When all device types were considered, a DR strategy is associated with reduced LOS without an increased cost penalty.
美国以外地区治疗心脏植入式电子设备(CIED)感染的经济成本报告有限。本研究旨在确定英国一家大型三级转诊中心治疗 CIED 感染的平均治疗费用,并比较不同治疗途径(早期与延迟再植入)的成本。
我们回顾性分析了连续接受感染的 CIED 取出的患者的成本和住院时间(LOS)数据,这些患者接受了心脏再同步治疗(CRT-D [带除颤器]、CRT-P [带起搏器])、植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)和永久性起搏器(PPM)治疗。
2013 年 1 月至 2015 年 3 月,84 例患者的完整数据可用于分析(18 例 [21.4%] CRT-D、24 例 [28.6%] ICD 和 42 例 [50.0%] PPM)。当考虑所有病例时,感染的费用范围从 5139 英镑(PPM)到 24318 英镑(CRT-D)。考虑不同的治疗策略;41 例(48.8%)在同一住院期间进行了 CIED 取出和再植入(早期再植入策略(ER)。43 例(51.2%)进行了取出,但随后出院回家,然后再入院进行日间再植入(延迟再植入策略(DR)。DR 与 ER 相比,LOS 明显缩短(5.0 天 vs. 18.0 天,p<0.001)。两种治疗策略的 CIED 感染发作总费用相似(包括可穿戴除颤器(Lifevest)和门诊抗生素费用,ER 与 DR 分别为 14241.48 英镑和 14741.70 英镑;p = 0.491)。
CIED 感染费用昂贵,且与重大健康经济负担相关。当考虑所有设备类型时,DR 策略与降低 LOS 相关,而无成本增加。