{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020022246941045607, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.870229007633588, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Cost‐Effectiveness of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy

ICD Cost‐Effectiveness. Cost‐efficacy assessment of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy has proved contentious and may have limited uptake of ICD therapy, particularly in Europe. Published modeling assessments are too inaccurate to determine clinical practice, and assessments based on clinical studies are incomplete (from the cost‐efficacy viewpoint). Although ICD therapy seems certain to be most cost‐effective in patients who are likely to have good longevity if their risk of sudden cardiac death is countered, the benefit of ICD therapy is not necessarily limited to such groups. Physicians and health economists need to develop a better understanding of how to assess high‐technology therapy costs so that uptake of such therapy is appropriately expedited with due regard to ethical and cost constraints.