Exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis of cardiac resynchronization therapy with systematic device optimization vs. standard (non-systematic) optimization: a multinational economic evaluation

Kurt Banz, Peter Paul Delnoy, Jean Renaud Billuart

Recent studies provide evidence of improved clinical benefits associated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) optimization. Our analysis explores the cost-effectiveness of systematically optimized (SO, 3 times a year) vs. non-systematically optimized (NSO, less than 3 times a year) CRT, whatever the echo optimization method used (manual or SonR® automatic). A longitudinal cohort model was developed to predict clinical and economic outcomes for SO vs. NSO strategies over 5 years. The analysis was performed from the payer perspective. Data from CLEAR study post-hoc analysis was used with 199 pts with CRT pacemaker (CRT-P). The main economic outcome measure was incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) expressed as cost per Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) gained. To assess the impact of data uncertainty, a sensitivity analysis was performed. The model also predicts outcomes for the two optimization strategies for CRT-D therapy vs. optimal medical treatment (OPT). At 1 year, ICERs for SO CRT vs. NSO CRT-P range between <euro> 22,226 (Spain) and <euro> 26,977 (Italy). Therefore, on the basis of a Willingness-To-Pay of <euro>30,000 per QALY, the SO method develops into a cost effective strategy from 1 year, onwards. These favorable outcomes are supported by the sensitivity analysis. Systematic optimization of CRT-D might also improve the cost-effectiveness of this device therapy by 27 % to 30 % dependent on the country analyzed, at 5 years. Our economic evaluation shows promising health economic benefits associated with SO CRT. These preliminary findings need further confirmation.