Cost-Effectiveness and Reimbursement
Growing Crisis of Coronary Artery Disease and Heart Failure
Cardiovascular diseases are the most prevalent and costly disease categories, with more than $350 billion in direct and indirect costs in the U.S. in 2014-2015, according to the American Heart Association1. Heart failure is the leading cause for medical readmissions among the Medicare population. One of every four acute heart failure patients is readmitted within 90 days of initial admission.
people with coronary artery disease (CAD) and more than 875,000 deaths per year from CAD2
year-old population expected to increase an additional 44% by 2030. Mortality also increasing in 45-65 year-old population3
cardiogenic shock mortality rate for last 20+ years4 without Impella heart pumps
Impella therapy demonstrates significant cost savings and cost-effectiveness for payers and providers
Impella is Associated with Reduced Mortality and Cost
Studies show the use of percutaneous ventricular assist devices (PVADs), including Impella, is particularly cost-effective.
- 29-47% reduction in adverse events at 90 days (death, stroke, MI, and/or repeat revascularization)5, 6
- 58% reduction in 30-day mortality for patients with CAD7
- 44% lower in-hospital mortality for patients with higher comorbidities vs. IABP8
Impella Reduces Length of Stay and Readmissions
Several studies, including systematic reviews of multiple cost-effectiveness publications, demonstrate that Impella use is associated with a reduction in length of stay for patients, with a greater opportunity for benefit as the illness level increases.
- 52% reduction in repeated admission for revascularization at 90 days9
Impella is associated with a reduction in hospital stays ranging from 2-12 days.9, 10 In the PROTECT II randomized controlled trial, there was a two-day reduction in hospital days.9 More emergent settings show a reduction in hospital days ranging from 2-12 days.9
Explore the Education Library
Cost-Effectiveness and Impella
George Vetrovec, MD, MACC, discusses data showing the cost-effectiveness of percutaneous ventricular assist devices (PVADs), including Impella heart pumps.
Results from PROTECT III, the Largest Prospective Multi-Center Single-Arm Study
Jeffrey W. Moses, MD, presents results from the PROTECT III trial which included 1,143 patients undergoing elective non-emergent PCI with Impella from 45 sites.
Comparing Impella® to ECMO in AMICS
Lemor et al. demonstrate better clinical outcomes, fewer complications, shorter hospital stay, and lower cost with Impella compared to ECMO in AMICS.
We understand that medical practice today requires you to work with health insurers who finance the care of your patient. We are committed to helping you obtain reimbursement for Abiomed’s platform of products.
- Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2019 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association. (2019). Circulation.
- Einarson, et al. (2018). Cardiovasc Diabetol. 17, 83.
- Sidney, S., et al. JAMA Cardiol.
- Jeger, et al. (2008). Ann Intern Med.
- O’Neill, W.W., et al. (2012). Circulation, 126(14), 1717-1727.
- Dangas, G.D., et al. (2014). Am J Cardiol, 113(2), 222-228.
- Stretch, R., et al. (2014). J Am Coll Cardiol, 64(14), 1407-1415.
- Al-Khadra, et al. (2019). CCI, 95(3), 503-512.
- Maini, B., et al. (2014). Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res, 14(3), 403-416.
- Gregory, D., et al. (2013). Am Health Drug Benefits, 6(2), 88-99.