| Title |
ENDURALIFE-Powered Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy Defibrillator Devices for Treating Heart Failure: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40258-017-0354-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
James Michael Evans, Andrew Cleves, Helen Morgan, Liesl Millar, Grace Carolan-Rees |
| Abstract |
ENDURALIFE™-powered cardiac resynchronisation therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) devices were the subject of an evaluation by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, through its Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme, for the treatment of heart failure. Boston Scientific (manufacturer) submitted a case for the adoption of the technology, claiming that it has a longer battery life resulting in a longer time to CRT-D replacement. Other claimed benefits were fewer complications associated with replacement procedures, fewer hospital admissions, less time spent in hospital and reduced demand on cardiology device implantation rooms. The submission was critiqued by Cedar, an external assessment centre. The submitted clinical evidence showed that ENDURALIFE-powered devices implanted during the period 2008-2010 were superior, in terms of longevity, to other devices at that time. Submitted economic evidence indicated that, because of a reduction in the need for replacement procedures, ENDURALIFE-powered devices were cost saving when compared to comparator devices. Cedar highlighted uncertainty of the applicability of the clinical evidence to devices marketed today. The Medical Technologies Advisory Committee noted that this was unavoidable due to the follow-up time required to study battery life. Clinical experts noted that increased battery life is an important patient benefit. However, centres use devices from multiple manufacturers to negate pressure on clinical services in the event of a major device recall. The clinical and economic evidence showed benefits to the patient, and further analysis requested by the committee suggested that ENDURALIFE-powered CRT-Ds may save between £2120 and £5627 per patient over 15 years through a reduction in the need for replacement procedures. ENDURALIFE-powered CRT-D devices received a positive recommendation in Medical Technologies Guidance 33. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 17% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 13% |
| Researcher | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 8 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 29% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 8% |
| Engineering | 2 | 8% |
| Psychology | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 October 2017.
All research outputs
#18,575,277
of 23,007,053 outputs
Outputs from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#614
of 784 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#251,920
of 328,927 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,053 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 784 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,927 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.