Abedin Teimourizad1, Aziz Rezapour2, Saeed Sadeghian3, Masih Tajdini3. 1. Department of Health Economics, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 2. Health Management and Economics Research Center, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. rezapour.a@iums.ac.ir. 3. Tehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Heart failure (HF) is an unusual heart function that causes reduction in cardiac or pulmonary output. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a mechanical device that helps to recover ventricular dysfunction by pacing the ventricles. This study planned to systematically review cost-effectiveness of CRT combined with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) versus ICD in patients with HF. METHODS: We used five databases (NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Cochrane Library, Medline, PubMed, and Scopus) to systematically reviewed studies published in the English language on the cost-effectiveness of CRT with defibrillator (CRT-D) Vs. ICD in patients with HF over 2000 to 2020. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was applied to assess the quality of the selected studies. RESULTS: Five studies reporting the cost-effectiveness of CRT-D vs ICD were finally identified. The results revealed that time horizon, direct medical costs, type of model, discount rate, and sensitivity analysis obviously mentioned in almost all studies. All studies used quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as an effectiveness measurement. The highest and the lowest Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were reported in the USA ($138,649per QALY) and the UK ($41,787per QALY), respectively. CONCLUSION: Result of the study showed that CRT-D compared to ICD alone was the most cost-effective treatment in patients with HF.
INTRODUCTION:Heart failure (HF) is an unusual heart function that causes reduction in cardiac or pulmonary output. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a mechanical device that helps to recover ventricular dysfunction by pacing the ventricles. This study planned to systematically review cost-effectiveness of CRT combined with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) versus ICD in patients with HF. METHODS: We used five databases (NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Cochrane Library, Medline, PubMed, and Scopus) to systematically reviewed studies published in the English language on the cost-effectiveness of CRT with defibrillator (CRT-D) Vs. ICD in patients with HF over 2000 to 2020. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was applied to assess the quality of the selected studies. RESULTS: Five studies reporting the cost-effectiveness of CRT-D vs ICD were finally identified. The results revealed that time horizon, direct medical costs, type of model, discount rate, and sensitivity analysis obviously mentioned in almost all studies. All studies used quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as an effectiveness measurement. The highest and the lowest Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were reported in the USA ($138,649per QALY) and the UK ($41,787per QALY), respectively. CONCLUSION: Result of the study showed that CRT-D compared to ICD alone was the most cost-effective treatment in patients with HF.
Authors: Christopher Y Woo; Erika J Strandberg; Michelle D Schmiegelow; Allison L Pitt; Mark A Hlatky; Douglas K Owens; Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 25.391