0
Poster Presentations: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 |

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Antiarrhythmic Therapies for the Treatment of Supraventricular Tachycardia FREE TO VIEW

Franklin Dexter, PhD; Julia Yang, MD; Rashad Carlton, PharmD; Thomas Bramley, PhD; George Harb, MD
Chest. 2011;140(4_MeetingAbstracts):210A. doi:10.1378/chest.1119093
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Abstract

PURPOSE: This analysis estimated the cost effectiveness of esmolol, metoprolol, diltiazem and amiodarone for the treatment of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) in perioperative or other emergent circumstances.

METHODS: A decision tree model was built to examine the cost effectiveness of esmolol, metoprolol, diltiazem and amiodarone for the treatment of SVT in perioperative or other emergent circumstances from a hospital perspective. Publically available wholesale acquisition costs (WAC) were used for pharmacy costs. Literature based values were used for most clinical inputs and medical costs of adverse cardiac events including myocardial infarction, stroke, hypotension, bradycardia, and ischemia. The primary efficacy parameter was rate of successful heart rate control. The primary outcome was the cost per successful heart rate control with incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) calculated. No discounting was applied due to the short time frame of the analysis. One way sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the influence of each model input. For the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, a Monte Carlo simulation consisting of 1,000 simulations was conducted to test the joint uncertainty of all modeling parameters simultaneously.

RESULTS: The total cost of therapy was $1,250, $2,630, $2,280, and $1,560 for esmolol, metoprolol, diltiazem and amiodarone, respectively. The rate of successful heart rate control was 90% (esmolol), 64% (metoprolol), 90% (diltiazem) and 74% (amiodarone). The cost per successful heart rate control was $1,390 (esmolol), $4,110 (metoprolol), $2,530 (diltiazem), and $2,100 (amiodarone). In the cost-effectiveness comparison, esmolol was the least costly treatment and most effective treatment. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, esmolol had the lowest cost-effectiveness ratio in 99.6% of the simulations. In the one-way sensitivity analysis, the model was most sensitive to the cost of hypotension, the cost of bradycardia and the rate of myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSIONS: In this model, from the hospital perspective, esmolol was both the least costly and the most cost-effective treatment in comparison with metoprolol, diltiazem, and amiodarone in the treatment of SVT in perioperative or other emergent circumstances.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Esmolol is cost-effective in treating supraventricular tachycardia.

DISCLOSURE: Franklin Dexter: Consultant fee, speaker bureau, advisory committee, etc.: University of Iowa Department of Anesthesia, received payment from Baxter Healthcare for my participation in the research

Julia Yang: Employee: Employee of Baxter

Rashad Carlton: Consultant fee, speaker bureau, advisory committee, etc.: Employee of Xcenda, which received payment to conduct research on behalf of Baxter

Thomas Bramley: Consultant fee, speaker bureau, advisory committee, etc.: Employee of Xcenda, which received payment to conduct research on behalf of Baxter

George Harb: Employee: Baxter

No Product/Research Disclosure Information

09:00 AM - 10:00 AM


Figures

Tables

References

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

CHEST Journal Articles
PubMed Articles
  • CHEST Journal
    Print ISSN: 0012-3692
    Online ISSN: 1931-3543