Cost–consequence analysis of daily continuous remote monitoring of implantable cardiac defibrillator and resynchronization devices in the UK

AIMS: The need for ongoing and lifelong follow-up (FU) of patients with cardiac implantable electric devices (CIED) requires significant resources. Remote CIED management has been established as a safe alternative to conventional periodical in-office FU (CFU). An economic model compares the long-term cost and consequences of using daily Home Monitoring® (HM) instead of CFU. METHODS AND RESULTS: A cost–consequence evaluation comparing HM vs. CFU was performed using a Markov cohort model and data relating to events and costs identified via a systematic review of the literature. The model is conservative, without assuming a reduction of cardiovascular events by HM such as decompensated heart failure or mortality, or considering cost savings such as for transportation. Also cost savings due to an improved timing of elective device replacement, and fewer FU visits needed in patients near device replacement are not considered. Over 10 years, HM is predicted to be cost neutral at about GBP 11 500 per patient in either treatment arm, with all costs for the initial investment into HM and fees for ongoing remote monitoring included. Fewer inappropriate shocks (−51%) reduce the need for replacing devices for battery exhaustion (−7%); the number of FU visits is predicted to be halved by HM. CONCLUSION: From a UK National Health Service perspective, HM is cost neutral over 10 years. This is mainly accomplished by reducing the number of battery charges and inappropriate shocks, resulting in fewer device replacements, and by reducing the number of in-clinic FU visits.