Key result
Early cardiac resynchronization therapy in mild heart failure was cost-effective, yielding $8,840 per QALY gained for CRT-ON versus CRT-OFF (95% CI: $6,705 to $10,804).
Why the study?
Is early cardiac resynchronization therapy cost-effective compared to delayed implantation or CRT-P in patients with mild heart failure?
RCT
Is early cardiac resynchronization therapy cost-effective compared to delayed implantation or CRT-P in patients with mild heart failure?
Effect estimate: $8,840/QALY gained (95% CI $6,705 to $10,804)
Early CRT implantation, including CRT-D, is highly cost-effective in patients with mild heart failure compared to delayed implantation or CRT-P.
Supports CRT cost-effectiveness; extends models but leaves real-world adoption uncertain.
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).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gold et al. (2017) conducted an RCT in Mild heart failure (HF). Early cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-ON or CRT-D) vs. CRT-OFF, CRT-P, or late implantation was evaluated on Cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained ($8,840/QALY gained, 95% CI $6,705 to $10,804). Early cardiac resynchronization therapy in mild heart failure was cost-effective, yielding $8,840 per QALY gained for CRT-ON versus CRT-OFF (95% CI: $6,705 to $10,804).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: