Key result
In a lifetime Markov model of patients with mild heart failure in Argentina, cardiac resynchronization therapy plus optimal medical treatment yielded an ICER of 34,185 ID$ per QALY gained.
Why the study?
Is cardiac resynchronization therapy cost-effective compared to optimal medical treatment alone in patients with mild heart failure in Argentina?
Is cardiac resynchronization therapy cost-effective compared to optimal medical treatment alone in patients with mild heart failure in Argentina?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cardiac resynchronization therapy appears to be a cost-effective treatment option compared to optimal medical therapy alone for patients with mild heart failure in Argentina.
OBJECTIVES: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has recently been shown to reduce both mid-term and long-term mortality in patients with mild heart failure. Although proven effective, it is unclear whether CRT is cost-effective in low and middle-income countries (LMIC). Therefore, we set out to analyze the cost-effectiveness of CRT in Argentina in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class (FC) I or II heart failure (HF). We chose to compare patients receiving optimal medical treatment (OMT) and CRT with those patients receiving only OMT. METHODS: We constructed a Markov model with a cohort simulation, and a life-time horizon to assess costs, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained as a result of treatment with both CRT and OMT from an Argentine third party payer perspective. We included patients who met the following criteria: left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 40 percent, sinus rhythm with a QRS ≥ 120 msec, and NYHA FC I-II HF. The results were expressed as cost per life-year and QALY gained in international dollars (ID$) for the year 2009. RESULTS: For the base case analysis performed, we started at a fixed age of 65. After applying a 3 percent annual discount rate, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 38.005 ID$ per year of life gained and 34.185 ID$ per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term treatment with CRT appears to be cost-effective in Argentina compared with patients treated solely with OMT. Similar analysis should be performed to determine if this treatment option is cost-effective in other LMIC.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Poggio et al. (2012) studied New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class (FC) I or II heart failure. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and optimal medical treatment (OMT) vs. Optimal medical treatment (OMT) only was evaluated on Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY gained (34,185 ID$ per QALY gained). In a lifetime Markov model of patients with mild heart failure in Argentina, cardiac resynchronization therapy plus optimal medical treatment yielded an ICER of 34,185 ID$ per QALY gained.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: