Five year trends (2008-2012) in cardiac implantable electrical device utilization in 5 European nations: a case study in cross-country comparisons using administrative databases

Aims Common methodologies for analysis of analogous data sets are needed for international comparisons of treatment and outcomes. This study tests using administrative hospital discharge (HD) databases in five European countries to investigate variation/trends in pacemaker (PM) and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implant rates in terms of patient characteristics/management, device subtype, and initial implantation vs. replacement, and compares findings with existing literature and European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) reports. Methods and results HD databases from 2008 to 2012 in Austria, England, Germany, Italy and Slovenia were interrogated to extract admissions (without patient identification) associated with PM and ICD implants and replacements, using direct cross-referencing of procedure codes and common methodology to compare aggregate data. 1 338 199 records revealed 212 952 PM and 62 567 ICD procedures/year on average for a 204.4 million combined population, a crude implant rate of about 104/100 000 inhabitants for PMs and 30.6 for ICDs. The first implant/replacement rate ratios were 81/24 (PMs) and 25/7 (ICDs). Rates have increased, with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) subtypes for both devices rising dramatically. Significant between- and within-country variation persists in lengths of stay and rates (Germany highest, Slovenia lowest). Adjusting for age lessened differences for PM rates, scarcely affected ICDs. Male/female ratios remained stable at 56/44% (PMs) and 79/21% (ICDs). About 90% of patients were discharged to home; 85-100% were inpatient admissions. Conclusion To aid in policymaking and track outcomes, HD administrative data provides a reliable, relatively cheap, methodology for tracking implant rates for PMs and ICDs across countries, as comparisons to EHRA data and the literature indicated

Health technology assessment of medical devices: a survey of non-European union agencies

The aim of this study was to review and compare current health technology assessment (HTA) activities for medical devices across non-European Union HTA agencies

Health technology assessment of medical devices: a survey of non-European union agencies

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to review and compare current health technology assessment (HTA) activities for medical devices across non-European Union HTA agencies. METHODS HTA activities for medical devices were evaluated from three perspectives: organizational structure, processes, and methods. Agencies were primarily selected upon membership of existing HTA networks. The data collection was performed in two stages: stage 1-agency Web-site assessment using a standardized questionnaire, followed by review and validation of the collected data by a representative of the agency; and stage 2-semi-structured telephone interviews with key informants of a sub-sample of agencies. RESULTS In total, thirty-six HTA agencies across twenty non-EU countries assessing medical devices were included. Twenty-seven of thirty-six (75 percent) agencies were judged at stage 1 to have adopted HTA-specific approaches for medical devices (MD-specific agencies) that were largely organizational or procedural. There appeared to be few differences in the organization, process and methods between MD-specific and non-MD-specific agencies. Although the majority (69 percent) of both categories of agency had specific methods guidance or policy for evidence submission, only one MD-specific agency had developed methodological guidelines specific to medical devices. In stage 2, many MD-specific agencies cited insufficient resources (budget, skilled employees), lack of coordination (between regulator and reimbursement bodies), and the inability to generalize findings from evidence synthesis to be key challenges in the HTA of medical devices. CONCLUSIONS The lack of evidence for differentiation in scientific methods for HTA of devices raises the question of whether HTA needs to develop new methods for medical devices but rather adapt existing methodological approaches. In contrast, organizational and/or procedural adaptation of existing HTA agency frameworks to accommodate medical devices appear relatively commonplace