Michael R Gold1, Amie Padhiar2, Stuart Mealing2, Manpreet K Sidhu3, Stelios I Tsintzos4, William T Abraham5. 1. Division of Cardiology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. Electronic address: goldmr@musc.edu. 2. ICON/Oxford Outcomes, Oxford, United Kingdom. 3. ICON/Oxford Outcomes, Morristown, New Jersey. 4. Medtronic Global Cardiac Rhythm and Heart Failure Headquarters, Global Health Economics, Reimbursement and Outcomes Research, Mounds View, Minnesota. 5. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the cost effectiveness of early cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation among patients with mild heart failure (HF). The differential cost effectiveness between CRT using a defibrillator (CRT-Ds) and CRT using a pacemaker (CRT-P) was also assessed. BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization has been shown to be cost effective in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classes III/IV but is less studied in class II HF. The incremental costs of early CRT implementation in mild HF compared with the costs potentially avoided because of delaying disease progression to advanced HF are also unknown. Finally, combined biventricular pacing and defibrillator (CRT-D) devices are more expensive than biventricular pacemakers (CRT-P), but the relative cost effectiveness is controversial. METHODS: Data from the 5-year follow-up phase of REVERSE (REsynchronization reVErses Remodeling in Systolic Left vEntricular Dysfunction) were used. The economics were evaluated from the U.S. Medicare perspective based on published clinical projections. RESULTS: Probabilistic estimates yielded $8,840/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained (95% confidence interval [CI]: $6,705 to $10,804/QALY gained) for CRT-ON versus CRT-OFF (i.e., programmed "ON" or "OFF" at pre-specified post-implantation timings) and $43,678/QALY gained for CRT-D versus CRT-P (95% CI: $35,164 to $53,589/QALY gained) over the patient's lifetime. Results were robust to choice of patient subgroup and alterations of ±10% to key model parameters. An "early" CRT-D class II strategy totaled $95,292 compared with $91,511 for a "late" implantation. An "early" implant offered on average 1.00 year of additional survival for $3,781, resulting in an ICER of $3,795/LY gained. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates CRT cost effectiveness in mild HF. The incremental CRT-D costs are justified by the anticipated benefits, despite increased procurement costs and shorter generator longevities. "Early" CRT-D implants have essential cost parity with "late" implants while increasing the patient's survival. (REsynchronization reVErses Remodeling in Systolic Left vEntricular Dysfunction [REVERSE]; NCT00271154).
OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the cost effectiveness of early cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation among patients with mild heart failure (HF). The differential cost effectiveness between CRT using a defibrillator (CRT-Ds) and CRT using a pacemaker (CRT-P) was also assessed. BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization has been shown to be cost effective in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classes III/IV but is less studied in class II HF. The incremental costs of early CRT implementation in mild HF compared with the costs potentially avoided because of delaying disease progression to advanced HF are also unknown. Finally, combined biventricular pacing and defibrillator (CRT-D) devices are more expensive than biventricular pacemakers (CRT-P), but the relative cost effectiveness is controversial. METHODS: Data from the 5-year follow-up phase of REVERSE (REsynchronization reVErses Remodeling in Systolic Left vEntricular Dysfunction) were used. The economics were evaluated from the U.S. Medicare perspective based on published clinical projections. RESULTS: Probabilistic estimates yielded $8,840/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained (95% confidence interval [CI]: $6,705 to $10,804/QALY gained) for CRT-ON versus CRT-OFF (i.e., programmed "ON" or "OFF" at pre-specified post-implantation timings) and $43,678/QALY gained for CRT-D versus CRT-P (95% CI: $35,164 to $53,589/QALY gained) over the patient's lifetime. Results were robust to choice of patient subgroup and alterations of ±10% to key model parameters. An "early" CRT-D class II strategy totaled $95,292 compared with $91,511 for a "late" implantation. An "early" implant offered on average 1.00 year of additional survival for $3,781, resulting in an ICER of $3,795/LY gained. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates CRT cost effectiveness in mild HF. The incremental CRT-D costs are justified by the anticipated benefits, despite increased procurement costs and shorter generator longevities. "Early" CRT-D implants have essential cost parity with "late" implants while increasing the patient's survival. (REsynchronization reVErses Remodeling in Systolic Left vEntricular Dysfunction [REVERSE]; NCT00271154).
Authors: Jonathan S Na; Michael Sokolow; James Childress; Paul Han; Sonika Patel; Jeffrey Rottman Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2021-02-11 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Derek S Chew; Patricia A Cowper; Hussein Al-Khalidi; Kevin J Anstrom; Melanie R Daniels; Linda Davidson-Ray; Yanhong Li; Robert E Michler; Julio A Panza; Ileana L Piña; Jean L Rouleau; Eric J Velazquez; Daniel B Mark Journal: Circulation Date: 2022-01-19 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Eva R Broers; Paul Lodder; Viola R M Spek; Jos W M G Widdershoven; Susanne S Pedersen; Mirela Habibović Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Moritz Hadwiger; Fabian-Simon Frielitz; Nora Eisemann; Christian Elsner; Nikolaos Dagres; Gerhard Hindricks; Alexander Katalinic Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2021-01 Impact factor: 2.561