Clinical and Economic Implications of the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-II
- Sana M. Al-Khatib, MD, MHS;
- Kevin J. Anstrom, PhD;
- Eric L. Eisenstein, DBA;
- Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPH;
- James G. Jollis, MD;
- Daniel B. Mark, MD, MPH;
- Yun Li, MS;
- Christopher M. O'Connor, MD;
- Linda K. Shaw, MS; and
- Robert M. Califf, MD
-
From the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina.
-
Figure 1. The estimated survival curves for the Duke medical therapy and ICD groups were adjusted to reflect a more recent
era of ischemic heart disease and heart failure management (1998–2001). Survival comparison of patients in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT)-II with patients in
the Duke medical therapy and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) groups.
-
Figure 2. Survival projections for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy versus medical therapy.
-
Figure 3. ICER = incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy versus medical therapy.
Responses to this article
-
Ann Intern Med
April 19, 2005
vol. 142
no. 8
593-600
RSS Feeds
View larger version:Figure 1. The estimated survival curves for the Duke medical therapy and ICD groups were adjusted to reflect a more recent era of ischemic heart disease and heart failure management (1998–2001). Survival comparison of patients in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT)-II with patients in the Duke medical therapy and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) groups.
View larger version:Figure 2. Survival projections for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy versus medical therapy.
View larger version:Figure 3. ICER = incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy versus medical therapy.
Related Clinical Content
