Potential cost‐effectiveness of wearable cardioverter‐defibrillator for patients with implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator explant in a high‐income city of China

INTRODUCTION: Wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) is recommended for patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) removal. This study aimed to investigate the potential cost-effectiveness of WCD for patients with ICD explant in a high-income city of China. METHODS AND RESULTS: A 5-year decision-analytic model was developed to simulate outcomes of three strategies during the period between ICD explant and reimplantation: discharge-to-home without WCD (home group), discharge-to-home with WCD (WCD group), and stay-in-hospital (hospital group). Outcome measures were mortality rates (during the period between ICD explant and reimplantation), direct medical costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost per QALY saved (ICER). Model inputs were derived from literature and public data. Base-case analysis was performed at four cost levels of WCD. Robustness of model results was examined by sensitivity analyses. In base-case analysis, the 8-week mortality rates of WCD, hospital, and home groups were 7.3%, 8.1%, and 9.4%, respectively. WCD group gained the highest QALYs (3.0990 QALYs), followed by hospital group (3.0553 QALYs) and home group (3.0132 QALYs). The WCD group was the cost-effective option with ICERs less than willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold (57 315 USD/QALY) at WCD daily cost ≤USD48. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the WCD group at daily cost of USD24, USD48, USD72, and USD96 were cost-effective in 100%, 94.16%, 22.08%, and 0.16% of 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Use of WCD during the period between ICD explant and reimplantation is likely to save life and gain higher QALYs. Cost-effectiveness of WCD is highly subject to the daily cost of WCD in China.