Skip to main content
. 2019 Mar 22;24(4):549–563. doi: 10.1007/s10741-019-09780-7

Table 2.

Trial-based evaluations (n = 20 cost–utility analyses based on 18 trials)

Study design Study population
Author and year Data source Setting; perspective Intervention vs. control Discount rate Sample size (n) Age (mean) Sex (males %) NYHA†‡ (%)

Agvall et al. (2014)

[19]

 The benefits of using a heart failure management programme in Swedish primary health care trial Sweden; health care system§ Management program vs. usual care NR 160 75 69.4

I (6)

II (59)

III (36)

Blomstrom et al. (2008)

[11]

 The Cardiac Resynchronisation in Heart Failure trial (CARE-HF) Europe; Denmark, Finland and Sweden; health care system Pharmacological therapy (PT) with cardiac resynchronisation therapy vs. PT alone 3% 813

I 67*

C 66

 73.4

III (87)

IV (13)

Boyne et al. (2013)

[20]

 Telemonitoring in Heart Failure trial (TEHAF) The Netherlands; health care system Telemonitoring vs. usual care 0% 382 71 59

II (57)

III (40)

IV (3)

Calvert et al. (2005)

[12]

 CARE-HF Europe; UK health care system Pharmacological therapy (PT) with cardiac resynchronisation therapy vs. PT alone 3.5% 813

I 67*

C 66

 73.4

III (87)

IV (13)

Capomolla et al. (2002)

[15]

 Own trial Italy; societal Day-hospital management vs. usual care 5% 234 56 83.8

I-II (65)

III-IV (35)

Cui et al. (2013)

[27]

 Testing the Effectiveness of Health Lines in Chronic Disease Management of Congestive Heart Failure trial (Health Lines) Canada; health care system Health Lines (I1) and Health Lines and in-house monitoring (I2) vs. standard treatment 0% 179 75 52

II (22)

III (47)

IV (31)

Hansson et al. (2016)

[16]

 Person-Centred Care in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure trial (PCC-HF) Sweden; health care system Person-centred vs. conventional care 0% 248

I 77.5

C 80.3

 58.9

I (5)

II (35)

III (54)

IV (7)

Hebert et al. (2008)

[21]

 Own trial US; societal and payer Nurse-managed disease management vs. usual care NR 406 59.4 54

I (18)

II (22)

III (14)

IV (45)

Maniadakis et al. (2011)

[13]

 CARE-HF Europe; Greek health care system Pharmacological therapy (PT) with cardiac resynchronisation therapy vs. PT alone 3% 813

I 67*

C 66

 73.4

III (87)

IV (13)

Maru et al. (2015)

[22]

 Which Heart Failure Intervention Is Most Cost-Effective & Consumer Friendly in Reducing Hospital Care trial (WHICH) Australia; health care system Home vs. clinic based care 5% 280 71 73

II/III (85)

IV (15)

Mejia et al. (2014)

[23]

 Nurse Facilitated Self-management Support for People with Heart Failure and their Family Carers trial (SEMAPHFOR) UK; National Health Service Nurse facilitated cognitive behavioural self-management programme vs. usual care 0% 260 70.6 72

II (68)

III (30)

IV (2)

Neumann et al. (2015)

[24]

 Interdisciplinary Network for Heart Failure trial (INH) Germany; societal Nurse-led management programme vs. usual care NR 715

I 67.7

C 69.4

 70.6

I (2)

II (58)

III (36)

IV (4)

Patel et al. (2008)

[25]

 Own pilot trial Sweden; health care system§ Home vs. conventional care NR 31

I 77

C 78

 67.7

II (3)

III (94)

IV (3)

Postmus et al. (2016)

[17]

 Coordinating Study Evaluating Outcomes of Advising and Counselling in Heart Failure trial (COACH) The Netherlands; health services Basic (I1) and intensive (I2) additional nurse support vs. usual care NR 1023 71 62

II (50)

III (46)

IV (4)

Reed et al. (2010)

[29]

 Heart Failure: a Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training trial (HF-ACTION) US, Canada and France; societal Exercise training plus usual care vs. usual care 3% 2331

I 59.2

C 59.3

 71.6

II (63)

III (36)

IV (1)

Reilly et al. (2015)

[26]

 Quality HF-diabetes trial US; health care services Self-care vs. usual care 0% 134 57.4 88

II (42)

III (50)

IV (8)

Sahlen et al. (2016)

[18]

 Palliative Advanced Home Care and Heart Failure Care trial (PREFER) Sweden; health services provider Palliative advanced home and heart failure care vs. usual care NR 72

I 81.9

C 76.6

 72.2

III (71)

IV (29)

Sánchez et al. (2010)

[31]

 Own trial Spain; hospital Peritoneal dialysis vs. conservative therapy NR 17 64 65

III (59)

IV (41)

Sanders-van Wijk et al. (2013)

[30]

 Intensified vs. Standard Medical Therapy in Elderly Patients with Congestive Heart Failure trial (TIME-CHF) Switzerland and Germany; third-party payer N-Terminal Pro-B-Type natriuretic-guided therapy vs. symptom-guided therapy 0% 467 76 66

II (27)

III-IV (73)

Zanaboni et al. (2013)

[28]

 Evolution of Management Strategies of Heart Failure Patients with Implantable Defibrillators trial (EVOLVO) Italy; health care system and patient Remote monitoring vs. conventional in-person evaluations NR 200

I 66*

C 69*

 78.5

I (12)

II (70)

III (19)

I Intervention, C control, I1 intervention 1, I2 intervention 2, NR not reported

*Median

†Components may not add to 100 due to rounding

‡New York Heart Association classification (I to IV)

§Assumed as not explicitly reported in paper