Health Affairs, 24, no. 1 (2005): 42-51 doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.24.1.42 © 2005 by Project HOPE	New Online   Pay Cuts For Medicare Docs   Access To Care Woes   Public Coverage More Efficient   Empowering Consumers

This Article Abstract Reprint (PDF) Submit a response to this article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services E-mail this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Personal Archive Download to Citation Manager Reprints & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (11) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hlatky, M. A. Articles by Owens, D. K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hlatky, M. A. Articles by Owens, D. K. Related Collections Evidence-Based Medicine Health Reform Medicare Physicians Quality Of Care Research And Technology Politics

Case Studies

Evidence-Based Medicine And Policy: The Case Of The Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator

Abstract

 
The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is a costly new treatment for patients at high risk of sudden cardiac death. Randomized trials of the ICD showed it to be effective in some groups of patients but not in others. While new trials testing the ICD were ongoing to clarify the evidence, policymakers faced immediate decisions about providing insurance coverage for the device. The high cost of ICDs, the large population of patients potentially eligible to receive them, the potential to reduce preventable deaths, and the unsettled state of the medical evidence provided a challenge to evidence-based medicine and to policymakers.

Until the late 1950s development of VF was inevitably fatal. Physicians then discovered that an electrical discharge applied to the chest of the victim could break the chaotic rhythm and restore a normal heartbeat. The new technology of external cardiac defibrillation led directly to the development of the cardiac intensive care unit and modern management of critically ill patients. Although external defibrillation was a huge advance, a defibrillator and qualified operator are rarely present when a person develops cardiac arrest. Even with the development of emergency medical systems, 911 calls, and public training in cardiac resuscitation, a victim of cardiac arrest has less than a 5 percent chance of survival in the United States today.

Given the limitations of responding to cardiac arrest, an innovative physician, Michel Mirowski, believed that the only effective strategy to combat sudden cardiac death would be to develop a cardiac defibrillator small enough to be permanently implanted within the patient. This device could constantly monitor the heart’s rhythm, quickly detect development of VF, and deliver a life-saving shock without need for outside intervention. After more than a decade of development, the first prototype was implanted in humans and dramatically demonstrated the effectiveness of this strategy for detecting and treating VF.¹ Early devices were extremely bulky and required open-heart surgery to implant. However, once Mirowski had proved the concept of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), newer and better devices were developed by reducing their size to the point that open-heart surgery was no longer necessary and by improving their capabilities to detect and treat serious ventricular arrhythmias. With increased ease and reduced risk of implantation, ICDs can now be considered for many patients at risk of cardiac arrest. Several device manufacturers now offer ICDs, which cost upward of $25,000 to implant.

Evidence And ICDs

Top Evidence And ICDs Cost-Effectiveness Of ICDs Coverage Of ICDs Challenges For Evidence-Based... Editor's Notes NOTES

 
One of the major developments in medicine during the past twenty years has been the recognition that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the best method to evaluate the effectiveness of therapy. The RCT is an experiment, and rigorous experiments are the hallmark of all branches of science. The need for evidence provided by RCTs has been underscored by dramatic examples in which treatments widely considered to be effective actually led to worse outcomes when formally tested. One of the most famous such reversals was the use of drugs to prevent sudden cardiac death in patients with a prior heart attack. This treatment was based on the observation that abnormal premature ventricular beats were strongly associated with sudden cardiac death. Anti-arrhythmic drugs can suppress premature beats, and most physicians believed that these drugs would therefore prevent sudden cardiac death. A large clinical trial showed that this belief was wrong: Anti-arrhythmic drug therapy actually doubled mortality in patients with a prior heart attack.² This unexpected result, and others like it, makes many physicians wary of accepting new treatments without solid data from RCTs. This skepticism spawned the movement that has been termed "evidence-based medicine."

The ICD appeared to be an exception to the general rule about needing a randomized trial to prove the effectiveness of therapy. Since all patients with VF die within minutes if not treated, when an ICD converts VF to a normal rhythm, it seemed clear to many observers that it must be an effective, life-saving therapy. Many physicians argued that RCTs of ICDs were not only unnecessary but also basically unethical. The counterargument in favor of RCTs of the ICD was based on the observation that many patients who are successfully converted from VF to a normal rhythm die shortly thereafter because of their underlying heart disease. If the ICD only postponed death by a few hours or days, it might not be really worthwhile. Indeed, it might be inhumane to convert a sudden and painless death from VF into a prolonged and miserable ordeal in intensive care.

The arguments in favor of performing RCTs ultimately won the day, perhaps because of the earlier humbling experience with drug therapy to prevent sudden cardiac death. RCTs of the ICD were initiated in two distinct groups of patients. The first consisted of patients who had survived an episode of VT or VF and thus were at very high risk of sudden cardiac death due to recurrent arrhythmia. The second consisted of patients who had not had an episode of VT or VF but were judged to be at risk of sudden cardiac death because of preexisting heart disease such as a prior heart attack or heart failure. The first group has been termed "secondary prevention"; the second, "primary prevention" or "prophylactic ICD implantation."

Three major RCTs tested ICDs in the secondary prevention population: one in Germany, one in Canada, and one in the United States.³ These secondary prevention trials were consistent in showing a 28 percent reduction in all-cause mortality attributable to ICD implantation (Exhibit 1). This reduction in a high-risk patient group was a substantial advance and translates into an important improvement in life expectancy. The medical community quickly accepted use of ICDs in patients with prior VT or VF, and the major cardiac professional societies endorsed their use as a "Class I indication" in clinical guidelines (meaning that there is general agreement that a treatment is useful and effective).⁴

After MADIT-II, the evidence about the efficacy of prophylactic ICDs was interpreted broadly by ICD proponents and narrowly by ICD skeptics. A formal overview of the data found significant heterogeneity among trial results but an overall 28 percent lower risk of death in patients given a prophylactic ICD.⁸ Numerous editorials and commentaries weighed the evidence and drew variable conclusions. In 2002 the major cardiac professional societies rated prophylactic ICD use in patients with prior heart attack and reduced ejection fraction as a "Class IIA indication" (meaning that there is conflicting evidence or divergence of opinion, or both, but leaning toward use of the treatment).⁹

In 2004 additional studies were released testing the value of prophylactic ICD implantation. The largest study, the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT), which was sponsored by the NIH, found 23 percent lower total mortality in patients with heart failure and an ejection fraction of 35 percent or less.¹⁰ The weight of evidence has shifted gradually toward showing a significant reduction in mortality from prophylactic ICDs in patients with impaired functioning of the left ventricle.

Cost-Effectiveness Of ICDs

Top Evidence And ICDs Cost-Effectiveness Of ICDs Coverage Of ICDs Challenges For Evidence-Based... Editor's Notes NOTES

 
ICDs are a very costly technology, with implantation costs usually exceeding $25,000 per patient. Even if the ICD is effective in reducing the risk of sudden death, it may do so at a cost that is simply unaffordable. The Stanford University Patient Outcome Research Team (PORT) on sudden cardiac death was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of strategies to manage life-threatening arrhythmias in patients with heart disease. One of our main goals was to assess the economic outcomes of ICD use and determine the circumstances in which these devices would be both effective and cost-effective.

We first documented the long-term cost of using an ICD because the device might "pay for itself" by reducing costly cardiac complications. We examined Medicare claims data of patients who received an ICD and of comparable patients who did not, and we found that the total medical costs of the ICD-treated patients remained roughly $30,000 higher throughout seven years of follow-up.¹¹ We also reviewed the RCTs of ICDs that reported economic data, which were consistent in showing that little of the initial cost of an ICD ($25,000–$30,000) was recouped by reducing later costs of care. These studies confirmed that implanting an ICD would add greatly to the nation’s health care bill.

The added expense of the ICD might be readily justified if it either prolongs life expectancy or improves quality of life. A formal cost-effectiveness analysis requires a projection of lifetime outcomes, so we developed a model to simulate the clinical course of patients who might benefit from an ICD.¹² The model incorporated estimates of the rate of sudden cardiac death and of the effectiveness, risks, and costs of ICD treatment, as well as other parameters needed to simulate the "natural history" of patients with heart disease. Using this model, we projected that a patient who had survived a previous episode of VT or VF would live an average of 5.64 years if given an ICD, compared with an average of 4.95 years if given the best available medical therapy. We also projected that the lifetime medical costs would be higher after an ICD implantation ($88,400) than under medical management ($51,000). We estimated the cost-effectiveness of the ICD in this model of secondary prevention at $54,000 per year of life added, which is within the commonly cited benchmark range of $50,000–$100,000 per year of life added.

We subsequently modified this model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic ICD use in patients with a history of heart attack but no history of VT or VF.¹³ This group of patients is far larger and more heterogeneous with respect to their risk of subsequent sudden cardiac death. Depending on markers of risk (the level of left ventricular ejection fraction) and the effectiveness of the ICD in reducing sudden cardiac death, we estimated that the life expectancy of patients given an ICD would range between 6.70 and 11.82 years, whereas using optimal medical treatment without specific antiarrhythmic therapy, life expectancy would range between 6.07 and 11.44 years. Lifetime medical costs showed a similar broad range: $119,600–$152,600 if an ICD were used versus $70,100–$91,700 if best medical therapy were used. Cost-effectiveness ratios ranged very widely depending on the patients chosen: from $24,100 per life year added in high-risk patients to higher cost and worse life expectancy in low-risk patients. Therefore, a prophylactic ICD can be a good value for the money spent in properly selected groups of patients, yet a waste of resources in less-well-chosen groups of patients.

Coverage Of ICDs

Top Evidence And ICDs Cost-Effectiveness Of ICDs Coverage Of ICDs Challenges For Evidence-Based... Editor's Notes NOTES

 
The ICD poses difficult issues for both public and private health insurers. It is an extremely costly yet potentially lifesaving device. It is also clear that the same device may be used in very different groups of patients. This is not a black-and-white situation, but rather one with many shades of gray.

The decision to pay for ICD implantation in patients who have survived a previous cardiac arrest was not terribly difficult or controversial. There was consistent evidence from three RCTs that the ICD is effective in this situation, and the target population was limited in size, since so few people survive an initial cardiac arrest. Coverage was readily provided for ICD use for this indication.

In contrast, prophylactic ICD implantation poses a very difficult coverage decision. There are millions of U.S. patients with heart disease, and tens of millions at risk of developing heart disease suddenly. The stakes are huge, and the evidence to guide decisions has been less clear-cut. Until 2002 the evidence supported only very narrow indications for prophylactic ICD use. This changed with the release of the large MADIT-II study showing a benefit of prophylactic ICDs in patients with a prior heart attack who had a left ventricular ejection fraction of 30 percent or less. Device manufacturers requested that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) cover ICD implantation in this population. With more than 500,000 heart attacks occurring each year in the United States, a favorable coverage decision could easily add several billion dollars to annual health care costs. In early 2003 the Medicare Coverage Advisory Committee (MCAC) held a public hearing and reviewed an independent, unpublished analysis of the MADIT-II data by an outside consultant. Two major issues were identified: (1) Evidence about the efficacy of prophylactic ICDs was heterogeneous, and large clinical trials (particularly SCD-HeFT) were still ongoing that might clarify the issue; and (2) the evidence showed uneven benefit from prophylactic ICDs across different subgroups of patients. The MCAC recommended that the CMS cover ICD implantation in patients who would have been eligible to participate in the MADIT-II trial. The CMS considered this advice for several months and in June 2003 decided to cover ICD implantation for a narrower indication than recommended by the MCAC: patients with an ejection fraction of 30 percent or less and delayed electrical conduction through the left ventricle.

The CMS’s national coverage decision regarding ICDs was widely criticized. The decision was particularly difficult in view of the large financial stakes on the one hand and the incomplete state of the pertinent evidence base on the other. The inconsistent results of the major clinical trials meant that professional consensus had not yet been reached on this indication for use of prophylactic ICDs. Nevertheless, the CMS could not ignore the evidence from MADIT-II and deny all coverage. The coverage criteria chosen, however, were based on unpublished analyses, and they presumed that the entire benefit of prophylactic ICDs in MADIT-II derived from the effects in a subgroup of patients. The clinical research community is very skeptical of subgroup analyses, however, which they consider to be post hoc fishing expeditions. (A major clinical trials group ridiculed subgroup analyses by publishing an analysis showing that heart attack treatment was ineffective for patients with the astrologic birth signs of Gemini or Libra but highly effective for patients with other birth signs.)¹⁴ The CMS could have avoided the appearance of cherry-picking subgroups and followed the MCAC’s advice by covering ICDs only for patients meeting the exact inclusion and exclusion criteria for the MADIT-II trial. For instance, patients within one month of an acute myocardial infarction or three months of a coronary artery bypass or angioplasty procedure were ineligible for MADIT-II, and the CMS could have declined to cover ICD implantation in such patients, which would have greatly limited utilization while strictly adhering to the available evidence.

With the release of several major clinical trials of ICDs in 2004 (Exhibit 1), the CMS revisited the national coverage decision in September 2004.¹⁵ It concluded that prophylactic use of an ICD is "reasonable and necessary" for patients with an ejection fraction of 30 percent or less, with several specific exclusionary criteria to match the patients enrolled in the RCTs. This recent coverage decision is based on the evidence from clinical trials but does not generalize beyond the trial results to broader populations. This recommendation is much less restrictive and has greater face validity than the 2003 decision, so we believe that it will be more acceptable to physicians.

Challenges For Evidence-Based Medicine

Top Evidence And ICDs Cost-Effectiveness Of ICDs Coverage Of ICDs Challenges For Evidence-Based... Editor's Notes NOTES

 
The case of the ICD illustrates several difficult challenges to the application of evidence-based medicine and cost-effectiveness analysis to public policy. Some of these challenges result from technical limitations of the methods, but others represent more fundamental issues.

Technology development begets technology evaluation, but some fields move so quickly that there is a persistent gap between the evidence available and the evidence needed to set policy. The ICD field has evolved very quickly, and devices on the market today have much greater capabilities than those of only two or three years ago. It takes several years, however, to conduct RCTs, so a clear picture of clinical outcomes is available only for earlier generations of the technology. Consequently, the evidence is often criticized as being "not up-to-date" or "not relevant" to current therapies. The field of evidence-based medicine needs to develop sound methods to deal with this "moving target" problem. One potential approach is to develop decision models that can be readily updated and thereby provide a flexible framework to integrate RCT findings with other forms of evidence and keep the conclusions contemporary.¹⁶

Basing decisions on substantial, consistent evidence is desirable, yet the evidence from different clinical trials is not always consistent. For instance, one early study of ICDs (CABG-Patch) found no reduction in mortality, while another (MADIT-I) found a 54 percent lower risk of death (Exhibit 1). Conflicting evidence such as this simply fuels debate, as proponents cite the evidence that best suits them and find flaws in the studies whose results they don’t like. The only real solution to conflicting evidence is to conduct additional studies to serve as "tie-breakers." Unfortunately, if medical opinion becomes polarized, these trials may never happen. Physicians who are convinced that the treatment has been proved effective will be unwilling to randomize patients, as will the physicians who are convinced that the treatment does not work. Only those few physicians who are really unsure of the best treatment—in a state of "clinical equipoise"—will be willing to enroll their patients in the needed trials.

Therapies may work well when matched to the appropriate patients but work poorly when applied to less well-selected patients. Indeed, the outcomes of therapy generally vary depending on patient characteristics (such as age, sex, severity of disease, prior treatments), provider characteristics (such as training, skill, volume of experience), and health system characteristics (such as teaching hospital status, quality-of-care initiatives). There are rarely black-and-white clinical indications for treatment; a gradual shading across the spectrum is the norm. The experience with patient selection for prophylactic ICDs illustrates how costs and benefits of treatment can vary depending on patients’ risk levels (Exhibit 2). It is difficult for policymakers to anticipate credibly all of the circumstances in which it is reasonable to use a particular treatment, so it will always be necessary for them to leave room for professional medical judgment. The CMS experience with prophylactic ICD shows how difficult it is to avoid micromanagement on the one hand without being so permissive as to pay for inappropriate treatment on the other hand.

Although cost-effectiveness is often discussed, it is not explicitly used as criterion for coverage by the CMS or by private insurers. By statute, the CMS does not cover services unless they are medically "necessary and reasonable," but these terms are vague.¹⁸ The policy dilemma arises when there is clear evidence from a clinical trial that an expensive therapy improves survival in a specific group of patients. In this situation, it is very hard for an insurer not to offer coverage, even if the therapy is very costly and even if the treatment may be overused as a result of "indication creep" after the coverage decision. In the case of prophylactic ICD implantation, the financial stakes are very high because of the large population of eligible patients. Insurers will clearly examine the data more closely when the stakes are higher, and they may reasonably require more solid evidence. The CMS coverage decision on ICDs was based on the evidence of variation in clinical effectiveness in different populations, however, and ICD cost-effectiveness was not explicitly considered. We believe that data on cost-effectiveness should be considered in these decisions, which would make the trade-offs between cost and outcomes open for discussion.

Finally, most effective therapies do, in fact, cost more money. Extending coverage to cost-effective treatments that are either expensive or apply to large populations, or both, will add to total medical care costs. When resources are limited, cost-effective care may nevertheless be difficult to afford.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators are a dramatic new medical technology that has evolved in a very few years from an experimental therapy to a standard of care for some groups of patients. Evidence-based medicine and cost-effectiveness analysis have been applied to the ICD and provide considerable insight as to when this expensive treatment should be used. Nevertheless, there are limitations to these evaluation methods, especially when they are applied to very expensive yet very effective therapies.

Editor's Notes

Top Evidence And ICDs Cost-Effectiveness Of ICDs Coverage Of ICDs Challenges For Evidence-Based... Editor's Notes NOTES

 
Mark Hlatky (hlatky{at}stanford.edu) is a professor of health research and policy and of medicine (cardiovascular) at the Stanford University School of Medicine in Stanford, California. Gillian Sanders is an associate professor of medicine at the Duke Clinical Research Institute in Durham, North Carolina. Douglas Owens is senior investigator at the VA Palo Alto Health Care System and an associate professor of medicine at Stanford Medical School.

This research was supported in part by Grant no. HS-08362 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

NOTES

Top Evidence And ICDs Cost-Effectiveness Of ICDs Coverage Of ICDs Challenges For Evidence-Based... Editor's Notes NOTES

 

1. M. Mirowski et al., "Termination of Malignant Ventricular Arrhythmias with an Implanted Automatic Defibrillator in Human Beings," New England Journal of Medicine 303, no. 6 (1980): 322–324.[ISI][Medline]
2. D.S. Echt et al., "Mortality and Morbidity in Patients Receiving Encainide, Flecainide, or Placebo: The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial," New England Journal of Medicine 324, no. 12 (1991): 781–788.[Abstract]
3. K.H. Kuck et al., "Randomized Comparison of Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy with Implantable Defibrillators in Patients Resuscitated from Cardiac Arrest: The Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH)," Circulation 102, no. 7 (2000): 748–754[Abstract/Free Full Text]; S.J. Connolly et al., "Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study (CIDS): A Randomized Trial of the Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator against Amiodarone," Circulation 101, no. 11 (2000); 1297–1302[Abstract/Free Full Text], and the Antiarrhythmics versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Investigators, "A Comparison of Antiarrhythmic-Drug Therapy with Implantable Defibrillators in Patients Resuscitated from Near-Fatal Ventricular Arrhythmias," New England Journal of Medicine 337, no. 22 (1997): 1576–1583.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
4. G. Gregoratos et al., "ACC/AHA Guidelines for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices," Journal of the American College of Cardiology 31, no. 5 (1998): 1175–1209.[Free Full Text]
5. J.T. Bigger and the Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG) Patch Trial Investigators, "Prophylactic Use of Implanted Cardiac Defibrillators in Patients at High Risk for Ventricular Arrhythmias after Coronary-Artery Bypass Graft Surgery," New England Journal of Medicine 337, no. 22 (1997): 1569–1575.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. A.J. Moss et al., "Improved Survival with an Implanted Defibrillator in Patients with Coronary Disease at High Risk for Ventricular Arrhythmia," New England Journal of Medicine 335, no. 26 (1996): 1933–1940.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. A.J. Moss et al., "Prophylactic Implantation of a Defibrillator in Patients with Myocardial Infarction and Reduced Ejection Fraction," New England Journal of Medicine 346, no. 12 (2002): 877–883.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. J.A. Ezekowitz, P.W. Armstrong, and F.A. McAlister, "Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in Primary and Secondary Prevention: A Systematic Review of Randomized, Controlled Trials," Annals of Internal Medicine 138, no. 6 (2003): 445–452.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. G. Gregoratos et al., "ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 Guideline Update for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices," Circulation 106, no. 16 (2002): 2145–2161.[Free Full Text]
10. S.C. Hammill, "Cardiac Arrhythmias," Journal of the American College of Cardiology 44, no. 2, Supp. A (2004): 16A–18A.[Free Full Text]
11. J.P. Weiss et al., "Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in the Treatment of Ventricular Arrhythmias among Medicare Beneficiaries," American Journal of Medicine 112, no. 7 (2002): 519–527.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
12. D.K. Owens et al., "Cost-Effectiveness of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators Relative to Amiodarone for Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death," Annals of Internal Medicine 126, no. 1 (1997): 1–12.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
13. G.D. Sanders et al., "Potential Cost-Effectiveness of Prophylactic Use of the Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator or Amiodarone after Myocardial Infarction," Annals of Internal Medicine 135, no. 10 (2001): 870–883.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
14. "Randomised Trial of Intravenous Streptokinase, Oral Aspirin, Both, or Neither among 17,187 Cases of Suspected Acute Myocardial Infarction: ISIS-2," Lancet 2, no. 8607 (1988): 349–360.[Medline]
15. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, "Draft Decision Memo for Implantable Defibrillators (CAG-00157R2)," cms.hhs.gov/mcd/viewdraftdecisionmemo.asp?id=139 (7 October 2004).
16. M.A. Hlatky, "Role of Economic Models in Randomized Clinical Trials," American Heart Journal 137, no. 5 (1999): S41–S46.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
17. E.N. Prystowsky, "Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: The Time of Your Life," Circulation 109, no. 9 (2004): 1073–1075.[Free Full Text]
18. S.R. Tunis, "Why Medicare Has Not Established Criteria for Coverage Decisions," New England Journal of Medicine 350, no. 21 (2004): 2196–2198.[Free Full Text]

                      What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. E. Epstein, J. P. DiMarco, K. A. Ellenbogen, N.A. M. Estes III, R. A. Freedman, L. S. Gettes, A. M. Gillinov, G. Gregoratos, S. C. Hammill, D. L. Hayes, et al. ACC/AHA/HRS 2008 Guidelines for Device-Based Therapy of Cardiac Rhythm Abnormalities: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 Guideline Update for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices) Developed in Collaboration With the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and Society of Thoracic Surgeons J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., May 27, 2008; 51(21): e1 - e62. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. E. Epstein, J. P. DiMarco, K. A. Ellenbogen, N.A. M. Estes III, R. A. Freedman, L. S. Gettes, A. M. Gillinov, G. Gregoratos, S. C. Hammill, D. L. Hayes, et al. ACC/AHA/HRS 2008 Guidelines for Device-Based Therapy of Cardiac Rhythm Abnormalities: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 Guideline Update for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices): Developed in Collaboration With the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and Society of Thoracic Surgeons Circulation, May 27, 2008; 117(21): e350 - e408. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. A. Hlatky and D. B. Mark The high cost of implantable defibrillators Eur. Heart J., February 2, 2007; 28(4): 388 - 391. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. D. Pearson, F. G. Miller, and E. J. Emanuel Medicare Requirement for Research Participation--Reply JAMA, December 27, 2006; 296(24): 2924 - 2925. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. B. Mark, C. L. Nelson, K. J. Anstrom, S. M. Al-Khatib, A. A. Tsiatis, P. A. Cowper, N. E. Clapp-Channing, L. Davidson-Ray, J. E. Poole, G. Johnson, et al. Cost-Effectiveness of Defibrillator Therapy or Amiodarone in Chronic Stable Heart Failure: Results From the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT) Circulation, July 11, 2006; 114(2): 135 - 142. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. D. Pearson and M. D. Rawlins Quality, Innovation, and Value for Money: NICE and the British National Health Service JAMA, November 23, 2005; 294(20): 2618 - 2622. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. D. Sanders, M. A. Hlatky, and D. K. Owens Cost-Effectiveness of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators N. Engl. J. Med., October 6, 2005; 353(14): 1471 - 1480. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. S. Stanton Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators: An Excellent Case Study Health Aff., January 1, 2005; 24(1): 52 - 54. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]