Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 27, 2026

Use of a Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device/Left Atrium to Femoral Artery Bypass System for Cardiogenic Shock
Published on: August 16, 2021
Cost-effectiveness analysis of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy
Joseph G Rogers1, Robin R Bostic, Kuo B Tong
1Division of Cardiology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Insights
Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) significantly improve survival and quality of life for advanced heart failure patients. These devices offer a more cost-effective solution compared to older pulsatile-flow models.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Health Economics
- Medical Devices
Background:
- Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are prevalent in mechanical circulatory support.
- The cost-effectiveness of these devices for destination therapy remains largely undetermined.
- Previous cost-effectiveness estimates exist for older pulsatile-flow devices.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the cost-effectiveness of continuous-flow LVADs for destination therapy.
- To compare the cost-effectiveness of continuous-flow LVADs against optimal medical management.
- To compare current continuous-flow LVAD cost-effectiveness with historical pulsatile-flow device data.
Main Methods:
- A Markov model was utilized to evaluate cost-effectiveness.
- Data on survival, hospitalization, quality of life, and costs were gathered from clinical trials and hospital claims.
- Medicare prospective payments informed the estimation of heart failure admission costs.
Main Results:
- Continuous-flow LVADs resulted in higher 5-year costs ($360,407 vs. $62,856) but improved quality-adjusted life years (1.87 vs. 0.37) and life years (2.42 vs. 0.64) compared to medical management.
- The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for continuous-flow LVADs was $198,184 per QALY and $167,208 per LY.
- This represents a 75% reduction in the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio compared to pulsatile-flow devices ($802,700 per QALY).
Conclusions:
- Cost-effectiveness for continuous-flow LVADs in destination therapy has substantially improved.
- Key drivers of improved cost-effectiveness include enhanced survival, better functional status, and reduced implantation costs.
- Continuous-flow LVADs present a more favorable economic profile than their pulsatile predecessors.
Background:
Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have become the dominant devices for mechanical circulatory support, but their cost-effectiveness is undetermined. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of continuous-flow devices for destination therapy versus optimal medical management in advanced heart failure and compared the results with previous estimates for pulsatile devices.
Methods And Results:
A Markov model was developed to assess cost-effectiveness. Survival, hospitalization rates, quality of life, and cost data were obtained for advanced heart failure patients treated medically or with a continuous-flow LVAD. Rates of clinical outcomes for all patients were obtained from clinical trial databases. Medicare prospective payments were used to estimate the cost of heart failure admissions. The cost of LVAD implantation was obtained prospectively from hospital claims within a clinical trial. Compared with medically managed patients, continuous-flow LVAD patients had higher 5-year costs ($360 407 versus $62 856), quality-adjusted life years (1.87 versus 0.37), and life years (2.42 versus 0.64). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the continuous-flow device was $198 184 per quality-adjusted life year and $167 208 per life year. This equates to a 75% reduction in incremental cost-effectiveness ratio compared with the $802 700 per quality-adjusted life year for the pulsatile-flow device. The results were most sensitive to the cost of device implantation, long-term survival, cost per rehospitalization, and utility associated with patients' functional status.
Conclusions:
The cost-effectiveness associated with continuous-flow LVADs for destination therapy has improved significantly relative to the pulsatile flow devices. This change is explained by significant improvements in survival and functional status and reduction in implantation costs.
Related Concept Videos
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care
Heart Failure VI: Adjunct Therapies
Cardiomyopathy II: Dilated Cardiomyopathy
Heart Failure V: Medical Management

