Cardiac resynchronization therapy added to an ICD had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $58,330/QALY compared to ICD alone, improving to $7,320/QALY in patients with left bundle branch block.
RCT (n=1,271)
2:3 ratio
Yes
Is CRT-ICD cost-effective compared to ICD alone in minimally symptomatic patients with reduced ejection fraction and wide QRS complex?
CRT-ICD is a cost-effective intervention over a 4-year horizon compared to ICD alone in minimally symptomatic heart failure patients with low ejection fraction and LBBB.
Effect estimate: ICER $58,330/QALY
Absolute Event Rate: 62600% vs 57050%
p-value: p=0.015
BACKGROUND: The Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT) trial demonstrated that cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) when added to the implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) reduces risk of heart failure or death in minimally symptomatic patients with reduced cardiac ejection fraction and wide QRS complex. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate 4-year cost-effectiveness of CRT-ICD compared to ICD alone using MADIT-CRT data. RESEARCH DESIGN: Patients enrolled in the trial were randomized to implantation of either ICD or CRT-ICD in a 2: 3 ratio, with up to 4-year follow-up period. Cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted, and sensitivity analyses by age, gender, and left bundle branch block (LBBB) conduction pattern were performed. SUBJECTS: A total of 1, 271 patients with ICD or CRT-ICD (US centers only) who reported healthcare utilization and health-related quality of life data. MEASURES: We used the EQ-5D (US weights) to assess patient HRQOL and translated utilization data to costs using national Medicare reimbursement rates. RESULTS: Average 4-year healthcare expenditures in CRT-ICD patients were higher than costs of ICD patients (62, 600 vs 57, 050, P = 0. 015), mainly due to the device and implant-related costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CRT-ICD compared to ICD was 58, 330/quality-adjusted life years (QALY) saved. The cost effectiveness improved with longer time horizon and for the LBBB subgroup (7, 320/QALY), with no cost-effectiveness benefit being evident in the non-LBBB group. CONCLUSIONS: In minimally symptomatic patients with low ejection fraction and LBBB, CRT-ICD is cost effective within 4-year horizon when compared to ICD-only.
Noyes et al. (Wed,) conducted a rct in minimally symptomatic patients with reduced cardiac ejection fraction and wide QRS complex (n=1,271). CRT-ICD vs. ICD alone was evaluated on 4-year cost-effectiveness (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) (ICER $58,330/QALY, p=0.015). Cardiac resynchronization therapy added to an ICD had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $58,330/QALY compared to ICD alone, improving to $7,320/QALY in patients with left bundle branch block.