BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment for heart failure (HF) with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and prolonged QRS interval. However, one third of patients do not benefit from treatment. This study compares the heart failure hospitalization (HFH) rates and corresponding costs between responders and non-responders to CRT. METHODS: At a single center in New Jersey, we enrolled patients with de novo CRT-D implants between January 2011 and July 2013. Medical history at implant and all subsequent hospitalizations were collected. A retrospective chart review of the cardiology visit at or closest to 12 months post-CRT implant was performed, and patients were classified into responders and non-responders. Universal billing records (UB-04), ICD-9-CM diagnoses, and procedure codes were used to determine whether each hospitalization was due to HF. For each heart failure hospitalization (HFH), an MS-DRG-based US national average Medicare reimbursement was determined. HFH rates and associated payor costs were compared between responders and non-responders using negative binomial regression and non-parametric bootstrapping (×10,000), respectively. RESULTS: CRT response was determined in 135 patients (n = 103 responders, n = 32 non-responders, average follow-up 1.4 years). Demographics, pre-implant HF characteristics, NYHA Class, QRS duration, ejection fraction (EF), left bundle branch block (LBBB) status, and co-morbidities were not statistically different between the two groups. The HFH rate was significantly lower in responders (0.43/patient year) compared to non-responders (0.96/patient year, IRR = 0.45, 95 % CI (0.23 0.90), P = 0.0197). Average US national Medicare reimbursement for the responder group (US$7205/patient year) was 48 % lower than that for the non-responder group (US$13,861/patient year, P = 0.035). CONCLUSION: In this single-center retrospective study, responders to CRT had significantly lower rates of post-implant heart failure hospitalization rate and reduced associated payor costs compared to non-responders. Therapies that increase CRT response rates can substantially reduce healthcare utilization.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment for heart failure (HF) with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and prolonged QRS interval. However, one third of patients do not benefit from treatment. This study compares the heart failure hospitalization (HFH) rates and corresponding costs between responders and non-responders to CRT. METHODS: At a single center in New Jersey, we enrolled patients with de novo CRT-D implants between January 2011 and July 2013. Medical history at implant and all subsequent hospitalizations were collected. A retrospective chart review of the cardiology visit at or closest to 12 months post-CRT implant was performed, and patients were classified into responders and non-responders. Universal billing records (UB-04), ICD-9-CM diagnoses, and procedure codes were used to determine whether each hospitalization was due to HF. For each heart failure hospitalization (HFH), an MS-DRG-based US national average Medicare reimbursement was determined. HFH rates and associated payor costs were compared between responders and non-responders using negative binomial regression and non-parametric bootstrapping (×10,000), respectively. RESULTS: CRT response was determined in 135 patients (n = 103 responders, n = 32 non-responders, average follow-up 1.4 years). Demographics, pre-implant HF characteristics, NYHA Class, QRS duration, ejection fraction (EF), left bundle branch block (LBBB) status, and co-morbidities were not statistically different between the two groups. The HFH rate was significantly lower in responders (0.43/patient year) compared to non-responders (0.96/patient year, IRR = 0.45, 95 % CI (0.23 0.90), P = 0.0197). Average US national Medicare reimbursement for the responder group (US$7205/patient year) was 48 % lower than that for the non-responder group (US$13,861/patient year, P = 0.035). CONCLUSION: In this single-center retrospective study, responders to CRT had significantly lower rates of post-implant heart failure hospitalization rate and reduced associated payor costs compared to non-responders. Therapies that increase CRT response rates can substantially reduce healthcare utilization.
Authors: William T Abraham; Westby G Fisher; Andrew L Smith; David B Delurgio; Angel R Leon; Evan Loh; Dusan Z Kocovic; Milton Packer; Alfredo L Clavell; David L Hayes; Myrvin Ellestad; Robin J Trupp; Jackie Underwood; Faith Pickering; Cindy Truex; Peggy McAtee; John Messenger Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-06-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Faisal M Merchant; E Kevin Heist; David McCarty; Prabhat Kumar; Saumya Das; Dan Blendea; Patrick T Ellinor; Theofanie Mela; Michael H Picard; Jeremy N Ruskin; Jagmeet P Singh Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2010-02-01 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: John Gorcsan; Peter Sogaard; Jeroen J Bax; Jagmeet P Singh; William T Abraham; Jeffrey S Borer; Kenneth Dickstein; Daniel Gras; Henry Krum; Josep Brugada; Michele Robertson; Ian Ford; Johannes Holzmeister; Frank Ruschitzka Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2015-08-30 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Jean-Claude Daubert; Leslie Saxon; Philip B Adamson; Angelo Auricchio; Ronald D Berger; John F Beshai; Ole Breithard; Michele Brignole; John Cleland; David B DeLurgio; Kenneth Dickstein; Derek V Exner; Michael Gold; Richard A Grimm; David L Hayes; Carsten Israel; Christophe Leclercq; Cecilia Linde; JoAnn Lindenfeld; Bela Merkely; Lluis Mont; Francis Murgatroyd; Frits Prinzen; Samir F Saba; Jerold S Shinbane; Jagmeet Singh; Anthony S Tang; Panos E Vardas; Bruce L Wilkoff; Jose Luis Zamorano; Inder Anand; Carina Blomström-Lundqvist; John P Boehmer; Hugh Calkins; Serge Cazeau; Victoria Delgado; N A Mark Estes; David Haines; Fred Kusumoto; Paco Leyva; Frank Ruschitzka; Lynne Warner Stevenson; Christian Tobias Torp-Pedersen Journal: Europace Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Hude Quan; Vijaya Sundararajan; Patricia Halfon; Andrew Fong; Bernard Burnand; Jean-Christophe Luthi; L Duncan Saunders; Cynthia A Beck; Thomas E Feasby; William A Ghali Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Inder S Anand; Peter Carson; Elizabeth Galle; Rui Song; John Boehmer; Jalal K Ghali; Brian Jaski; JoAnn Lindenfeld; Christopher O'Connor; Jonathan S Steinberg; Jill Leigh; Patrick Yong; Michael R Kosorok; Arthur M Feldman; David DeMets; Michael R Bristow Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-02-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Michael Urbich; Gary Globe; Krystallia Pantiri; Marieke Heisen; Craig Bennison; Heidi S Wirtz; Gian Luca Di Tanna Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 4.981