Wednesday, September 23, 2009

The patient: Caught in a tug of war between doctors and industry.

It’s been interesting to watch the debate that’s ensued from the publishing of MADIT-CRT earlier this month.

If you’re not familiar with the MADIT-CRT trial, it suggests that patients with early-stage, mildly symptomatic heart failure, who are indicated for ICD implantation, may benefit from the addition of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The study was supported by a research grant from Boston Scientific and well received by other device makers who foresee a lift in CRT-D sales.

But not everyone is cheerful.

A particularly interesting commentary on this has come from a prominent electrophysiologist and blogger, Dr. Richard Fogoros (a.k.a. DrRich). In a recent post titled “The Implantable Defibrillator Chickens Come Home To Roost,” DrRich speculates whether Boston Scientific sponsored the study “largely in order to entice (or shame) doctors into finally offering their heart failure patients an implantable defibrillator.” Still, he predicts results might not generate the expected increase in demand for CRT-Ds and that “the implantable defibrillator industry is probably going to be very disappointed with the reaction of the medical establishment to the MADIT-CRT trial.”

The problem seems to be that while manufacturers persistently try every possible way to drive up demand for their most expensive devices, doctors have lagged behind in prescribing them to patients. The reasons as to why ICDs have remained “underutilized” is unknown, but it’s been theorized that physicians might still be skeptical about the efficacy of ICDs and that patients might lack an understanding of this life-saving therapy.

Back to DrRich, he makes two eye-opening points:


“Sudden death has no constituency,” says DrRich. He claims that neither society nor patients themselves are really interested in preventing sudden cardiac death. His point is that while sudden death itself is “free,” giving someone an ICD or treating them for an underlying cardiac disease is a lot more costly to insurers and to society in general. As DrRich puts it, sudden death is actually “a boon to our federal budget.” A chilling thought (and rude awakening) for those of us at risk.


DrRich also has some harsh words for industry. He says that prices for implantable defibrillators are “artificially and arbitrarily high,” thus precluding “any reasonable penetration of this life-saving technology into the vast population of patients who might benefit from it.” He contends that, while pacemakers are sold for $3,000 to $6,000, CRT devices (in essence, 3-lead pacemakers) are sold for $25,000 to $35,000.

According to DrRich, the lack of constituency for sudden death coupled with the high cost of ICDs and CRT-Ds results in “a business model that is fundamentally broken.”


As someone at risk of sudden death (who now lives with an ICD,) I don’t take DrRich’s commentary lightly. According to his online bio and public LinkedIn profile, DrRich “is a former professor of medicine who spent over 20 years as a full-time clinical cardiologist, medical researcher, teacher and author” as well as recent Medical Advisor to Guidant (now, Boston Scientific.)

And as I write this, you can still find his name in the advisory board of Boston Scientific’s LifeBeat Online listed as “Consultant to research and development of medical devices.”


If anything, it means that we must remain vigilant advocates for our own best interests.

Industry will do whatever they can to drive product demand, and doctors will have their own biases regarding when to follow clinical guidelines. So, do as I do: Educate yourself and become an active participant in your own health care. 

Related read: Is ICD therapy being over-prescribed to us?

No comments: