Economic Considerations of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices for The Treatment of Heart Failure.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Heart failure (HF) is a major public health problem worldwide, affecting more than 64 million people [1]. The complex and severe nature of HF presents challenges in providing cost-effective care as patients often require multiple hospitalizations and treatments. This review of relevant studies with focus on the last 10 years summarizes the health and economic implications of various HF treatment options in Europe and beyond. Although the main cost drivers in HF treatment are clinical (re)admission and decompensation of HF, an assessment of the economic impacts of various other device therapy options for HF care are included in this review. This includes: cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) such as cardiac-resynchronisation-therapy devices that include pacemaking (CRT-P), cardiac-resynchronisation-therapy devices that include defibrillation (CRT-D), implantable cardioverter/defibrillators (ICDs) and various types of pacemakers. The impact of (semi)automated (tele)monitoring as a relevant factor for increasing both the quality and economic impact of care is also taken into consideration. Quality of life adjusted life years (QALYs) are used in the overall context as a composite metric reflecting quantity and quality of life as a standardized measurement of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of different device-based HF interventions. RECENT FINDINGS: In terms of the total cost of different devices, CRT-Ds were found in several studies to be more expensive than all other devices in regards to runtime and maintenance costs including (re)implantation. In the case of CRT combined with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (CRT-D) versus ICD alone, CRT-D was found to be the most cost-effective treatment in research work over the past 10 years. Further comparison between CRT-D vs. CRT-P does not show an economic advantage of CRT-D as a minority of patients require shock therapy. Furthermore, a positive health economic effect and higher survival rate is seen in CRT-P full ventricular stimulation vs. right heart only stimulation. Telemedical care has been found to provide a positive health economic impact for selected patient groups-even reducing patient mortality. For heart failure both in ICD and CRT-D subgroups the given telemonitoring benefit seems to be greater in higher-risk populations with a worse HF prognosis. In patients with HF, all CIED therapies are in the range of commonly accepted cost-effectiveness. QALY and ICER calculations provide a more nuanced understanding of the economic impact these therapies create in the healthcare landscape. For severe cases of HF, CRT-D with telemedical care seems to be the better option from a health economic standpoint, as therapy is more expensive, but costs per QALY range below the commonly accepted threshold.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of leadless cardiac resynchronization therapy.

BACKGROUND: The Wireless Stimulation Endocardially for CRT (WiSE-CRT) system is a novel technology used to treat patients with dyssynchronous heart failure (HF) by providing leadless cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Observational studies have demonstrated its safety and efficacy profile, however, the treatment cost-effectiveness has not previously been examined. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness evaluation of the WiSE-CRT System was performed using a cohort-based economic model adopting a "proportion in state" structure. In addition to the primary analysis, scenario analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed to test for uncertainty in input parameters. Outcomes were quantified in terms of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) differences. RESULTS: The primary analysis demonstrated that treatment with the WiSE-CRT system is likely to be cost-effective over a lifetime horizon at a QALY reimbursement threshold of £20 000, with a net monetary benefit (NMB) of £3781 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness declines at time horizons shorter than 10 years. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that average system battery life had the largest impact on potential cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Within the model limitations, these findings support the use of WiSE-CRT in indicated patients from an economic standpoint. However, improving battery technology should be prioritized to maximize cost-effectiveness in times when health services are under significant financial pressures.

Gain in real-world cardiac resynchronization therapy efficacy with SyncAV dynamic optimization: Heart failure hospitalizations and costs.

BACKGROUND: SyncAV, a device-based cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) algorithm, promotes electrical optimization by dynamically adjusting atrioventricular intervals. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of SyncAV on heart failure hospitalizations (HFHs) and related costs in a real-world CRT cohort. METHODS: Patients with SyncAV-capable CRT devices followed by remote monitoring and enrolled in Medicare fee-for-service for at least 1 year preimplant and up to 2 years postimplant were studied. Patients with SyncAV OFF were 4:1 matched to those with SyncAV ON on preimplant HFH rate, demographics, comorbidities, disease etiology, and left bundle branch block. HFHs were determined from the primary diagnosis of inpatient hospitalizations, and the cost for each event was the sum of Medicare, supplemental insurance, and patient payment. RESULTS: After 4:1 propensity score matching, 3630 patients were studied (mean age 75 ± 8 years; 1386 [38%] female), including 726 (25%) patients with SyncAV ON. The pre-CRT HFH rate was 0.338 HFH events per patient-year. Overall, CRT diminished the HFH rate to 0.204 events per patient-year (P < .001). SyncAV elicited a larger reduction in HFH rate (SyncAV ON: hazard ratio [HR] 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-0.66; P < .001 and SyncAV OFF: HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.59-0.77; P < .001). After 2 years, the HFH rate was lower in the SyncAV ON group than in the SyncAV OFF group (0.143 HFHs per patient-year vs 0.193 HFHs per patient-year; HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.55-0.89; P = .003) and fewer HFHs were followed by 30-day HFH readmissions (4.41% vs 7.68%; P = .003) and 30-day all-cause hospital readmissions (7.04% vs 10.01%; P = .010). The total 2-year HFH-associated costs per patient were lower with SyncAV ON (difference $1135; 90% CI $93-$2109; P = .038). CONCLUSION: This large, real-world, propensity score-matched study demonstrates that SyncAV CRT is associated with significantly reduced HFHs and associated costs, incremental to standard CRT.

Economic value of insertable cardiac monitors in unexplained syncope in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Early use of insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) is recommended for patients with unexplained syncope following initial clinical workup, due to its superior ability to establish symptom-rhythm correlation compared with conventional testing (CONV). However, ICMs incur higher upfront costs, and the impact of additional diagnoses and resulting treatment on downstream costs and outcomes is unclear. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ICM compared with CONV for the diagnosis of arrhythmia in patients with unexplained syncope, from a US payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to estimate lifetime costs and benefits of arrhythmia diagnosis with ICM versus CONV, considering all related diagnostic and arrhythmia-related treatment costs and consequences. Cohort characteristics and costs were informed by original claims database analyses. Risks of mortality, syncopal recurrence, injury due to syncope and quality of life consequences from syncopal events were identified from the literature. RESULTS: ICM was less costly and more effective than CONV. Most of the observed US$4532 cost savings were attributed to reduced downstream diagnostic testing. For every 1000 patients, ICM was projected to yield an additional 253 arrhythmia diagnoses and lead to treatment in an additional 168 patients. The ICM strategy resulted in overall improved outcomes (0.30 quality-adjusted life years gained), due to a reduction in syncope recurrence and injury resulting from arrhythmia treatment. The results were robust to changes in the base case parameters but sensitive to the model time horizon, underlying probability of syncope recurrence and prevalence of arrhythmias. CONCLUSIONS: Our model projected that early ICM for the diagnosis of unexplained syncope reduced long-term costs, and led to an improvement in overall clinical outcomes by shortening time to arrhythmia treatment. The cost of ICM was outweighed by savings arising from fewer downstream diagnostic episodes, and the increased cost of treatment was counterbalanced by fewer syncope-related event costs.

Economic evaluation of a dedicated cardiac resynchronisation therapy preassessment clinic.

INTRODUCTION: Patient evaluation before cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) remains heterogeneous across centres and it is suspected a proportion of patients with unfavourable characteristics proceed to implantation. We developed a unique CRT preassessment clinic (CRT PAC) to act as a final review for patients already considered for CRT. We hypothesised that this clinic would identify some patients unsuitable for CRT through updated investigations and review. The purpose of this analysis was to determine whether the CRT PAC led to savings for the National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: A decision tree model was made to evaluate two clinical pathways; (1) standard of care where all patients initially seen in an outpatient cardiology clinic proceeded directly to CRT and (2) management of patients in CRT PAC. RESULTS: 244 patients were reviewed in the CRT PAC; 184 patients were eligible to proceed directly for implantation and 48 patients did not meet consensus guidelines for CRT so were not implanted. Following CRT, 82.4% of patients had improvement in their clinical composite score and 57.7% had reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume ≥15%. Using the decision tree model, by reviewing patients in the CRT PAC, the total savings for the NHS was £966 880. Taking into consideration the additional cost of the clinic and by applying this model structure throughout the NHS, the potential savings could be as much as £39 million. CONCLUSIONS: CRT PAC appropriately selects patients and leads to substantial savings for the NHS. Adopting this clinic across the NHS has the potential to save £39 million.

Clinical and economic impact of multipoint left ventricular pacing: A comparative analysis from the Italian registry on multipoint pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy (IRON-MPP).

INTRODUCTION: Early evidence suggests that multipoint left ventricular pacing (MPP) may improve response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). It is unknown whether this benefit is sustained and cost-effective. We used real-world data to evaluate long-term impact of MPP-ON clinical status, heart failure hospitalizations (HFH) and costs. METHODS: The Italian registry on multipoint left ventricular pacing is a prospective, multicenter registry of patients implanted with MPP-enabled CRT devices. For this analysis, clinical and echocardiographic data were collected through 24 months and compared between patients with (MPP-ON) or without (MPP-OFF) early MPP activation at implant. The total cost of each HFH was estimated with national Italian reimbursement rates. RESULTS: The study included 190 MPP-OFF and 128 MPP-ON patients with similar baseline characteristics. At 1 and 2 years, the MPP-ON group had lower rates of HFH vs MPP-OFF (1-year hazard ratio [HR]: 0.14, P = .0014; 2-year HR: 0.38, P = .009). The finding persisted in a subgroup of patients with consistent MPP activation through follow-up (1-year HR: 0.19; P = .0061; 2-year HR: 0.39, P = .022). Total HFH per-patient costs were lower in the MPP-ON vs the MPP-OFF group at 1 year (€101 ± 50 vs €698 ± 195, P < .001) and 2 years (€366 ± 149 vs €801 ± 203, P = .038). More MPP-ON patients had ≥5% improvement in ejection fraction (76.8% vs 65.4%, P = .025) and clinical composite score (66.7% vs 47.5%, P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter clinical study, early MPP activation was associated with a significant reduction in cumulative HFH and related costs after 1 and 2 years of follow-up.

Optimisation of cardiac resynchronisation therapy device selection guided by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: Cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: A recent study showed that the presence and characteristics of myocardial scar could independently predict appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapies and the risk of sudden cardiac death in patients receiving a de novo cardiac resynchronisation device. DESIGN: The aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging-based algorithms versus clinical practice in the decision-making process for the implantation of a cardiac resynchronisation device pacemaker versus cardiac resynchronisation device implantable cardioverter-defibrillator device in heart failure patients with indication for cardiac resynchronisation therapy. METHODS: An incidental Markov model was developed to simulate the lifetime progression of a heart failure patient cohort. Key health variables included in the model were New York Heart Association functional class, hospitalisations, sudden cardiac death and total mortality. The analysis was done from the healthcare system perspective. Costs (€2017), survival and quality-adjusted life years were assessed. RESULTS: At 5-year follow-up, algorithm I reduced mortality by 39% in patients with a cardiac resynchronisation device pacemaker who were underprotected due to misclassification by clinical protocol. This approach had the highest quality-adjusted life years (algorithm I 3.257 quality-adjusted life years; algorithm II 3.196 quality-adjusted life years; clinical protocol 3.167 quality-adjusted life years) and the lowest lifetime costs per patient (€20,960, €22,319 and €28,447, respectively). Algorithm I would improve results for three subgroups: non-ischaemic, New York Heart Association class III-IV and ≥65 years old. Furthermore, implementing this approach could generate an estimated €702 million in health system savings annually in European Society of Cardiology countries. CONCLUSION: The application of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging-based algorithms could improve survival and quality-adjusted life years at a lower cost than current clinical practice (dominant strategy) used for assigning cardiac resynchronisation device pacemakers and cardiac resynchronisation device implantable cardioverter-defibrillators to heart failure patients.

Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Older Adults With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) are cardiac implantable electronic devices that may improve morbidity and mortality in select patients with heart failure. Although the benefits of these devices have been well defined, competing mortality risks, comorbid conditions, and frailty pose difficulty in determining risk-benefit trade-offs when these options are considered for older adults. CONCLUSION: In this review, we focus on the benefit, risk, and use of ICD and CRT in older adults, particularly because the goals of care for many older adults include a shift away from life-prolonging interventions. Additionally, we discuss periprocedural risk, cost, and maintenance in older populations. Finally, we introduce a framework for helping clinicians and older adults make these challenging decisions collectively. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:2193-2199, 2019.

Economic value and cost-effectiveness of biventricular versus right ventricular pacing: results from the BLOCK-HF study.

Aims: The Biventricular vs Right Ventricular Pacing in Heart Failure Patients with Atrioventricular Block (BLOCK-HF) demonstrated that biventricular (BiV) pacing resulted in better clinical and structural outcomes compared to right ventricular (RV) pacing in patients with atrioventricular (AV) block and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF; ≤50%). This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of BiV vs RV pacing in the patient population enrolled in the BLOCK-HF trial. Methods: All-cause mortality, New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class distribution over time, and NYHA-specific heart failure (HF)-related healthcare utilization rates were predicted using statistical models based on BLOCK-HF patient data. A proportion-in-state model calculated cost-effectiveness from the Medicare payer perspective. Results: The predicted patient survival was 6.78 years with RV and 7.52 years with BiV pacing, a 10.9% increase over lifetime. BiV pacing resulted in 0.41 more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared to RV pacing, at an additional cost of $12,537. The "base-case" incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $30,860/QALY gained. Within the clinical sub-groups, the highest observed ICER was $43,687 (NYHA Class I). Patients receiving combined BiV pacing and defibrillation (BiV-D) devices were projected to benefit more (0.84 years gained) than BiV pacemaker (BiV-P) recipients (0.49 years gained), compared to dual-chamber pacemakers. Conclusions: BiV pacing in AV block patients improves survival and attenuates HF progression compared to RV pacing. ICERs were consistently below the US acceptability threshold ($50,000/QALY). From a US Medicare perspective, the additional up-front cost associated with offering BiV pacing to the BLOCK-HF patient population appears justified.

Frequency of in-hospital adverse outcomes and cost utilization associated with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator implantation in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The utilization of cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) has increased significantly, since its initial approval for use in selected patients with heart failure. Limited data exist as for current trends in implant-related in-hospital complications and cost utilization. The aim of our study was to examine in-hospital complication rates associated with CRT-D and their trends over the last decade. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, we estimated 378 248 CRT-D procedures from 2003 to 2012. We investigated common complications, including mechanical, cardiovascular, pericardial complications (hemopericardium, cardiac tamponade, or pericardiocentesis), pneumothorax, stroke, vascular complications (consisting of hemorrhage/hematoma, incidents requiring surgical repair, and accidental arterial puncture), and in-hospital deaths described with CRT-D, defining them by the validated International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis code. Mechanical complications (5.9%) were the commonest, followed by cardiovascular (3.6%), respiratory failure (2.4%), and pneumothorax (1.5%). Age (≥65 years), female gender (OR, 95% CI; P value) (1.08, 1.03-1.13; 0.001), and the Charlson score ≥3 (1.52, 1.45-1.60; <0.001) were significantly associated with increased mortality/complications. CONCLUSIONS: The overall complication rate in patients undergoing CRT-D has been increasing in the last decade. Age (≥65), female sex, and the Charlson score ≥3 were associated with higher complications. In patients who underwent CRT-D implantation, postoperative complications were associated with significant increases in cost.

Battery longevity of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators: technical, clinical and economic aspects. An expert review paper from EHRA.

In recent years an extension of devices longevity has been obtained for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), including ICDs for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-D) through improved battery chemistry and device technology and this implies important clinical benefits (reduced need for device replacements and associated complications, particularly infections), as well as economic benefits, in line with patient preferences and needs. From a clinical point of view, the availability of this improvement in technology allows to better tune the choice of the device to be implanted, taking into account that the reasons supporting the value of an extended device longevity as a clinical priority may differ according to the clinical setting (purely electrical diseases or left ventricular dysfunction/heart failure, respectively). From an economic point of view, extension of device longevity may have an important impact in reducing long-term costs of device therapy, with substantial daily savings in favour of devices with extended longevity, up to 30%, depending on clinical scenarios. In studies based on projections, an extension of device longevity allowed to calculate that the cost per day of ICDs may be substantially reduced, and this allows to overcome the frequent perception of ICD and CRT-D devices as treatments with unaffordable costs and to overturn the misconception that up-front costs are the only metric with which to value device treatments. In view of its clinical and economic value, device longevity should be a determining factor in device choice by physicians and healthcare commissioners and should be appropriately considered and valued in comparative tenders.

Statistics on the use of cardiac electronic devices and interventional electrophysiological procedures in Africa from 2011 to 2016: report of the Pan African Society of Cardiology (PASCAR) Cardiac Arrhythmias and Pacing Task Forces.

Aims: To provide comprehensive information on the access and use of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) and catheter ablation procedures in Africa. Methods and results: The Pan-African Society of Cardiology (PASCAR) collected data on invasive management of cardiac arrhythmias from 2011 to 2016 from 31 African countries. A specific template was completed by physicians, and additional information obtained from industry. Information on health care systems, demographics, economics, procedure rates, and specific training programs was collected. Considerable heterogeneity in the access to arrhythmia care was observed across Africa. Eight of the 31 countries surveyed (26%) did not perform pacemaker implantations. The median pacemaker implantation rate was 2.66 per million population per country (range: 0.14-233 per million population). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy were performed in 12/31 (39%) and 15/31 (48%) countries respectively, mostly by visiting teams. Electrophysiological studies, including complex catheter ablations were performed in all countries from Maghreb, but only one sub-Saharan African country (South Africa). Marked variation in cost (up to 1000-fold) was observed across countries with an inverse correlation between implant rates and the procedure fees standardized to the gross domestic product per capita. Lack of economic resources and facilities, high cost of procedures, deficiency of trained physicians, and non-existent fellowship programs were the main drivers of under-utilization of interventional cardiac arrhythmia care. Conclusion: There is limited access to CIED and ablation procedures in Africa. A quarter of countries did not have pacemaker implantation services, and catheter ablations were only available in one country in sub-Saharan Africa.

Cost-effectiveness of a risk-stratified approach to cardiac resynchronisation therapy defibrillators (high versus low) at the time of generator change.

OBJECTIVE: Responders to cardiac resynchronisation therapy whose device has a defibrillator component and who do not receive a therapy in the lifetime of the first generator have a very low incidence of appropriate therapy after box change. We investigated the cost implications of using a risk stratification tool at the time of generator change resulting in these patients being reimplanted with a resynchronisation pacemaker. METHODS: A decision tree was created using previously published data which had demonstrated an annualised appropriate defibrillator therapy risk of 2.33%. Costs were calculated at National Health Service (NHS) national tariff rates (2016-2017). EQ-5D utility values were applied to device reimplantations, admissions and mortality data, which were then used to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over 5 years. RESULTS: At 5 years, the incremental cost of replacing a resynchronisation defibrillator device with a second resynchronisation defibrillator versus resynchronisation pacemaker was £5045 per patient. Incremental QALY gained was 0.0165 (defibrillator vs pacemaker), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £305 712 per QALYs gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis resulted in an ICER of £313 612 (defibrillator vs pacemaker). For reimplantation of all patients with a defibrillator rather than a pacemaker to yield an ICER of less than £30 000 per QALY gained (current NHS cut-off for approval of treatment), the annual arrhythmic event rate would need to be 9.3%. The budget impact of selective replacement was a saving of £2 133 985 per year. CONCLUSIONS: Implanting low-risk patients with a resynchronisation defibrillator with the same device at the time of generator change is not cost-effective by current NHS criteria. Further research is required to understand the impact of these findings on individual patients at the time of generator change.

A Decade of Information on the Use of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices and Interventional Electrophysiological Procedures in the European Society of Cardiology Countries: 2017 Report from the European Heart Rhythm Association.

AIMS: The aim of this analysis was to provide comprehensive information on invasive cardiac arrhythmia therapies in the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) area over the past 10 years. METHODS AND RESULTS: The European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) has collected data on invasive arrhythmia therapies since 2008. This year 53 of the 56 ESC member countries provided data for the EHRA White Book. Here we present updated data on procedure rates together with information on demographics, economy, vital statistics, local healthcare systems and training activities. Considerable heterogeneity in the access to invasive arrhythmia therapies still exists across the five geographical ESC regions. In 2016, the device implantation rates per million population were 3-6 times higher in the Western region than in the non-European and Eastern ESC member countries. Catheter ablation activity was highest in the Western countries followed by the Northern and Southern areas. In the non-European countries, atrial fibrillation ablation rate was more than tenfold lower than in the European countries. On the other hand, the growth rate over the past ten years was highest in the non-European and Eastern countries. In some Eastern European countries with relative low gross domestic product the procedure rates exceeded the average values. CONCLUSION: It was encouraging to note that during the past decade the growth in invasive arrhythmia therapies was greatest in the areas historically with relatively low activity. Nevertheless, there is substantial disparity and continued efforts are needed to improve harmonization of cardiac arrhythmia therapies in the ESC area.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy and its role in the management of heart failure.

The prevalence of heart failure is increasing and it is associated with significant mortality and morbidity. Optimal medical therapy improves outcome, but heart failure continues to have a substantial impact on both the individual patient and wider society. Over the last two decades, cardiac resynchronization therapy has revolutionized the treatment of selected patients who have heart failure. Cardiac resynchronization therapy significantly reduces mortality and hospitalization through reverse cardiac remodelling. This review informs non-specialists about cardiac resynchronization therapy and for which patients it should be considered.

Economic Value and Cost-Effectiveness of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Among Patients With Mild Heart Failure: Projections From the REVERSE Long-Term Follow-Up.

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).

An updated review of cardiac devices in heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure has the highest rates of adult hospitalisations, the highest mortality rates and significant costs associated with its care. The cost of heart failure is expected continue to grow on a global scale, with $108 billion spent on heart failure in 2012. Mortality rates are high, with incident cases of heart failure resulting in 30% 1-year mortality, and in hospital mortality of acute heart failure, 28%. METHODS AND RESULTS: This article reviews the devices currently in use for the treatment of heart failure, as well as those that are under investigation. A review of the mechanism of action of devices, the literature supporting their application as therapy, and the cost effectiveness associated with their use are discussed. Conventional techniques discussed herein include the guideline-supported therapies of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). Novel devices that are discussed include invasive physiological monitoring, neuromodulation, percutaneous ventricular assist devices (VADs) and cardiac contractility modulation (CCM). There has been advancement in mechanical circulatory support devices for the treatment of both acute and chronic heart failure. In addition to MCS, only CRT has resulted in reduced mortality. CONCLUSION: Due to the clinical and economic arguments, treatment of heart failure is said to be the biggest unmet need in cardiology today. The data reviewed herein support this statement.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Quadripolar Versus Bipolar Left Ventricular Leads for Cardiac Resynchronization Defibrillator Therapy in a Large, Multicenter UK Registry.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of quadripolar versus bipolar cardiac resynchronization defibrillator therapy systems. BACKGROUND: Quadripolar left ventricular (LV) leads for cardiac resynchronization therapy reduce phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) and are associated with reduced mortality compared with bipolar leads. METHODS: A total of 606 patients received implants at 3 UK centers (319 Q, 287 B), between 2009 and 2014; mean follow-up was 879 days. Rehospitalization episodes were costed at National Health Service national tariff rates, and EQ-5D utility values were applied to heart failure admissions, acute coronary syndrome events, and mortality data, which were used to estimate quality-adjusted life-year differences over 5 years. RESULTS: Groups were matched with regard to age and sex. Patients with quadripolar implants had a lower rate of hospitalization than those with bipolar implants (42.6% vs. 55.4%; p = 0.002). This was primarily driven by fewer hospital readmissions for heart failure (51 [16%] vs. 75 [26.1%], respectively, for quadripolar vs. bipolar implants; p = 0.003) and generator replacements (9 [2.8%] vs. 19 [6.6%], respectively; p = 0.03). Hospitalization for suspected acute coronary syndrome, arrhythmia, device explantation, and lead revisions were similar. This lower health-care utilization cost translated into a cumulative 5-year cost saving for patients with quadripolar systems where the acquisition cost was <£932 (US $1,398) compared with bipolar systems. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis results mirrored the deterministic calculations. For the average additional price of £1,200 (US $1,800) over a bipolar system, the incremental cost-effective ratio was £3,692 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (US $5,538), far below the usual willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 (US $30,000). CONCLUSIONS: In a UK health-care 5-year time horizon, the additional purchase price of quadripolar cardiac resynchronization defibrillator therapy systems is largely offset by lower subsequent event costs up to 5 years after implantation, which makes this technology highly cost-effective compared with bipolar systems.