Cost impact of the use of a universal cardiac implantable electronic devices remote monitoring solution: results of the Evidence RM study

Abstract

Background Remote monitoring (RM) is considered the standard of care for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED). In 2023 the HRS/EHRA/APHPRS/LAHRS expert consensus highlighted the potential interest of alert-based monitoring and the use of a third-party platform for RM management. By lightening the RM workload for clinical staff, valuable time and resources can be redirected towards patient care. Purpose This study aims to assess the impact on healthcare expenditures of the adoption of a Universal, vendor-neutral, and alert-focused remote monitoring (RM) platform for CIED in France, as opposed to the Conventional RM conducted via device specific manufacturers' platforms. Methods This study utilizes the French National Health Database (SNDS) to evaluate the effectiveness of RM solutions among patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD), including cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT-D). All patients under RM were categorized based on the type of monitoring, either the Universal RM or the Conventional RM. The analysis was conducted on year 2019 and included only patients maintaining consistent RM solutions and device types throughout the entirety of the study period. To mitigate potential biases, costs were adjusted according to age, gender, device type, year of first implantation, year of RM initiation, medical center experience with RM, and Elixhauser score for comorbidities. Results Study cohort consisted of 36,401 patients (age 67.3 ± 13.0 years / male 78.4% / CRT-D 40.1%), 1,482 patients followed using the Universal RM platform and 34,419 patients monitored with the Conventional RM solutions. The study findings revealed a 4% decrease in corrected total costs and a notable 17.8% reduction in hospital costs among patients utilizing the Universal RM. Analysis further identified that this decrease in hospital expenses was primarily influenced by a reduction of the costs associated with cardiovascular diseases. Conversely, the group utilizing the Universal RM experienced a 7.9% increase in total outpatient costs compared to Conventional RM, while ambulatory visit costs remained unchanged. As costs incurred by patients were not included, total costs may however be underestimated. Patients under the Universal RM solution may benefit of more proactive preventive measures delivered through outpatient care. By addressing issues preemptively, critical conditions may be averted, enhancing overall patient management, and diminishing hospital costs. The adoption of a third-party Universal platform may thus yield to cost savings, exemplified by a negative Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) of -103€ per Day Alive and Out of Hospital (DAOH) as observed in this study. Conclusions The use of a third-party Universal RM platform showed a positive impact in terms of costs reduction for the French healthcare system on this ICD population.