Why the study?
Is CRT-D cost-effective compared to OPT or CRT-P in patients with dyssynchronous heart failure?
Systematic Review
Is CRT-D cost-effective compared to OPT or CRT-P in patients with dyssynchronous heart failure?
CRT-D is generally cost-effective compared to optimal pharmacological therapy, but its cost-effectiveness compared to CRT-P is questionable and highly sensitive to device costs, battery life, and mortality reductions.
Supports CRT-D over OPT but questions it versus CRT-P in dyssynchronous HF; extends economic evidence with sensitivity to device costs.
OBJECTIVES: Cardiac resynchronization therapy with a biventricular pacemaker (CRT-P) is an effective treatment for dyssynchronous heart failure (DHF). Adding an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (CRT-D) may further reduce the risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD). However, if the majority of patients do not require shock therapy, the cost-effectiveness ratio of CRT-D compared to CRT-P may be high. The objective of this study was to systematically review decision models evaluating the cost-effectiveness of CRT-D for patients with DHF, compare the structure and inputs of these models and identify the main factors influencing the ICERs for CRT-D. METHODS: A comprehensive search strategy of Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and EconLit identified eight cost-effectiveness models evaluating CRT-D against optimal pharmacological therapy (OPT) and/or CRT-P. RESULTS: The selected economic studies differed in terms of model structure, treatment path, time horizons, and sources of efficacy data. CRT-D was found cost-effective when compared to OPT but its cost-effectiveness became questionable when compared to CRT-P. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness of CRT-D may increase depending on improvement of all-cause mortality rates and HF mortality rates in patients who receive CRT-D, costs of the device, and battery life. In particular, future studies need to investigate longer-term mortality rates and identify CRT-P patients that will gain the most, in terms of life expectancy, from being treated with a CRT-D.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Prinzen et al. (2016) conducted a systematic review in Heart failure. Cardiac resynchronization therapy with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (CRT-D) vs. Optimal pharmacological therapy (OPT) and/or CRT-P was evaluated on Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY gained.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: