Table 2. General information of the selected economic evaluations.

Reference (country); conflict of interest	Time horizon discount rate	Analytic technique design	Population Intervention and comparator
Pulsatile LVAD
Clegg et al., 2005 (5) (UK)*; no conflict of interest	5 years; costs: 6%; effects: 1.5%	CUA; Markov model	~REMATCH population**; LVAD as long-term chronic support (LTCS) versus medical therapy
Adang et al., 2006 (6) (the Netherlands); no conflict of interest mentioned	3 years; 3% for both costs and effects	CUA; Markov model	Patients with end-stage heart failure (NYHA class IV); LVAD as destination therapy versus optimal medical therapy
Girling et al., 2007 (7) (UK); Support through the MATCH Programme (no further details)	Lifetime (not explicitly mentioned); 3.5% for both costs and effects	(Alternative) CUA; health-economic model	~REMATCH population***; LVAD as destination therapy versus optimal medical management
Messori et al., 2009 (9) (Italy); two authors on a single occasion received reimbursement of travel expenses from companies manufacturing LVADs	Lifetime; no discounting in base case scenario (Scenario analysis—costs: 3%; effects: 1.5%)	(Alternative) CEA (base case scenario) and CUA (sensitivity analysis); health-economic model	Patients who received a HeartMate device [68 patients (53 males, 97.1% with NYHA class IV, mean age of 66 years)]; LVAD (HeartMate device) versus no LVAD
Continuous-flow LVAD
Rogers et al., 2012 (10) (US); Thoratec provided funding support. Authors have served as consultants for Thoratec, received a research grant, or are employee of Thoratec	5 years; 3% for both costs and effects	CUA; Markov model	Patients with predominantly NYHA class IV symptoms and an LVEF of ≤25%. These patients were ineligible for heart transplantation. Continuous-flow LVAD for destination therapy versus optimal medical management
Neyt et al., 2013 (11) (the Netherlands); no conflict of interest	Lifetime; costs: 4%; effects: 1.5%	CUA; Markov model	Adults with chronic end-stage heart failure, contraindications for a heart transplant, LVEF of 25 percent or less, and NYHA class IV for at least 90 days despite OMT. Continuous-flow LVAD as destination therapy versus OMT

*, The journal article of Clegg et al. published in 2007 (8) is the same as the report published in 2005 (5); **, NYHA class IV population with an average age of 66-68 years; ***, patients with chronic end-stage heart failure and NYHA class IV symptoms. LVADs, left ventricular assist devices; OMT, optimal medical therapy; CUA, cost-utility analysis; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; NYHA, New York Heart Association.