Table 1.
Overview and quality of included studies
| Study | Year | Category | CM | Country | Perspective | Interventions | Outcome (2020 Euros) | Conclusion | Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Economic evaluations—Diagnostics | 88.7% | ||||||||
| Wordsworth [33] | 2010 |
Genetic testing |
HCM | UK | Provider | Cascade genetic testing vs clinical surveillance | € 16,626/LYS | Cascade genetic testing is cost-effective | 91.7% |
| Ingles [30] | 2012 |
Genetic testing |
HCM | Australia | Payer | Genetic testing vs clinical screening |
€ 484/QALY € 7840/LYG |
Cascade genetic testingis cost-effective | 92.1% |
| Catchpool [25] | 2019 |
Genetic testing |
DCM | Australia | HCS | Cascade genetic testing vs clinical surveillance | € 3492/QALY | Cascade genetic testing is cost-effective | 94.7% |
| Nieuwhof [34] | 2017 | Follow-up care programmes for relatives | HCM and DCM | Netherlands | Provider | Follow-up care by genetic counsellor vs follow-up care by cardiologist | ∆ costs of-€ 9.46; ∆ perceived personal control score of 0.11 ∆ proportion of follow-up care provided of 35.7% ∆ patient satisfaction score of 42 | Follow-up care by genetic counsellor is much appreciated at lower costs | 76.5% |
| Economic evaluations—Treatments | 85.4% | ||||||||
| Evers [26] | 2019 | WCD | DCM | USA | HCS |
[1] Home-no WCD [2] Home-WCD [3] Inpatient stay |
[1 vs 2] € 16,543/QALY [3 vs 2] € 210,380/QALY |
Use of WCDs is cost-effective | 71.1% |
| Haag [28] | 2020 | AED | HCM | USA | Societal | At-home AED vs none | € 69,905/QALY | Use of AEDs is cost-effective | 84.2% |
| Feingold [27] | 2010 | ICD | DCM | USA | Societal | With and without ICD | € 284,027/QALY | ICD placement is not cost-effective | 84.2% |
| Haag [29] | 2020 | ICD | HCM | USA | Societal | With and without ICD |
€ 2,433/QALY intermediate risk -€ 6393/QALY high risk |
ICD placement is cost-effective | 84.2% |
| Magnusson [31] | 2020 | ICD | HCM | Sweden |
[1] HCS [2] Societal |
With and without ICD |
[1] € 15,610/QALY [2] -€ 55,405/QALY |
ICD placement is cost-effective | 92.1% |
| Takura [32] | 2015 | VAD | HCM and DCM | Japan | Payer | Implantable VADs vs extracorporeal devices |
€ 280,606/QALY (12 months) € 95,088/QALY (36 months) |
VADs are cost-effective only in the long term | 90.0% |
| Avanceña [24] | 2021 | VAD | DCM | USA |
[1] Societal [2] HCS |
VAD vs watchful waiting |
[1] € 159,398/QALY [2] € 136,422/QALY |
VADs are not cost-effective | 92.1% |
| Cost-of-illness studies | 66.7% | ||||||||
| Jan [35] | 2016 | – | HCM | USA | HCS | Top-down approach |
Mean hospital costs of € 22,703.69 Median € 17,337.75 |
Highest burden in children and adolescents | 50.0% |
| Tripathi [36] | 2018 | – | HCM | USA | Provider | Top-down approach |
Mean hospital costs (€ 18,998.77 vs € 14,475.43) |
Arrhythmias linked to higher economic burden | 83.3% |
CM cardiomyopathy, HCM hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, DCM dilated cardiomyopathy, AED automated external defibrillator, WCD wearable cardioverter defibrillator, ICD implantable cardioverter defibrillator, VAD ventricular assist devices, HCS healthcare system, LYS life years saved, LYG life years gained, QALY quality adjusted life years, ∆ incremental.