Cost-effectiveness analysis of implantable cardiac devices in patients with systolic heart failure: a US perspective using real world data

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.

Physiological pacing with a DF-1 single chamber defibrillator in a patient with permanent atrial fibrillation and heart block: a case report

We report a case report of a 68-year-old man with chemotherapy-induced cardiomyopathy and uncontrolled permanent atrial fibrillation. CRT implantation and atrioventricular junction ablation was planned. DF-1 single chamber defibrillator was connected to lead's defibrillation and a lead destinated to left bundle branch area pacing. This system leads to reduce costs by one third, improve battery longevity and provide a more physiological pacing. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Cost-effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy plus an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in patients with heart failure: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Heart failure (HF) is an unusual heart function that causes reduction in cardiac or pulmonary output. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a mechanical device that helps to recover ventricular dysfunction by pacing the ventricles. This study planned to systematically review cost-effectiveness of CRT combined with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) versus ICD in patients with HF.

METHODS

We used five databases (NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Cochrane Library, Medline, PubMed, and Scopus) to systematically reviewed studies published in the English language on the cost-effectiveness of CRT with defibrillator (CRT-D) Vs. ICD in patients with HF over 2000 to 2020. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was applied to assess the quality of the selected studies.

RESULTS

Five studies reporting the cost-effectiveness of CRT-D vs ICD were finally identified. The results revealed that time horizon, direct medical costs, type of model, discount rate, and sensitivity analysis obviously mentioned in almost all studies. All studies used quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as an effectiveness measurement. The highest and the lowest Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were reported in the USA ($138,649per QALY) and the UK ($41,787per QALY), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Result of the study showed that CRT-D compared to ICD alone was the most cost-effective treatment in patients with HF.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without defibrillation: a long-standing debate

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) was shown to improve cardiac function, reduce heart failure hospitalizations, improve quality of life and prolong survival in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and intraventricular conduction disturbances, mainly left bundle branch block, on optimal medical therapy with ACE-inhibitors, β-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists up-titrated to maximum tolerated evidence-based doses. CRT can be achieved by means of pacemaker systems (CRT-P) or devices with defibrillation capabilities (CRT-D). CRT-Ds offer an undoubted advantage in the prevention of arrhythmic death, but such an advantage may be of lesser degree in non-ischemic heart failure aetiologies. Moreover, the higher CRT-D hardware complexity compared to CRT-P may predispose to device/lead malfunctions and the higher current drainage may cause a shorter battery duration with consequent premature replacements and the well-known incremental complications. In a period of financial constraints, also device costs should be carefully evaluated, with recent reports suggesting that CRT-Ps may be favoured over CRT-Ds in patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and no prior history of cardiac arrhythmias from a cost-effectiveness point of view. The choice between a CRT-P or a CRT-D device should be patient-tailored whenever straightforward defibrillator indications are not present. The Goldenberg score may facilitate this decision-making process in ambiguous settings. Age, comorbidities, kidney disease, atrial fibrillation, advanced functional class, inappropriate therapy risk, implantable device infections and malfunctions are factors potentially reducing the expected benefit from defibrillating capabilities. Future prospective, randomized controlled trials are warranted to directly compare the efficacy and safety of CRT-Ps and CRT-Ds.

A Cost Comparison of Infliximab Versus Intravenous Immunoglobulin for Refractory Kawasaki Disease Treatment

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In 10% to 20% of cases, Kawasaki disease is refractory to intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), an expensive medication under a national shortage. Data suggest that infliximab is a viable alternative to a second dose of IVIg, with similar efficacy and safety. We compared the cost of a second IVIg dose to that of infliximab in the treatment of refractory Kawasaki disease (rKD).

METHODS

A decision analysis model was used to compare rKD treatments: a second dose of IVIg at 2 g/kg versus infliximab at 10 mg/kg. Infliximab monitoring times were 24, 36, and 48 hours. Direct hospital costs beginning at rKD diagnosis were estimated by using 2016-2017 Truven MarketScan data. Redbook was used for drug costs. Calculations were applied to 3 hypothetical cohorts of 100 patients aged 2 (12.5 kg), 4 (16 kg), and 8 years (25.5 kg). Indirect costs included parental missed workdays.

RESULTS

The total direct cost for children receiving IVIg was $1 677 801, $1 791 652, and $2 100 675 for the 2-, 4-, and 8-year-old cohorts. The direct cost of infliximab with 24 hours of monitoring was $853 042, $899 096, and $1 024 101, respectively. A 20% bidirectional sensitivity analysis revealed stability of our model, with overall cost savings with use of infliximab. With monitoring 48 hours after infliximab treatment, 20% changes in length of stay (LOS) tipped the balance for the 2- and 4-year-old cohorts. Overall, IVIg and infliximab LOS had the most influence on our model.

CONCLUSIONS

Infliximab has potential to yield shorter LOS and significant cost savings in the treatment of rKD. Infliximab treatment, followed by 24 hours of monitoring, nearly halved hospital costs, regardless of age.

Cost-Effectiveness of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients with Heart Failure in Thailand

Background

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves symptoms and survival in patients with heart failure (HF). However, the CRT devices are costly and can impose a significant burden to the relatively constrained health budgets of middle-income countries such as Thailand. The aim of this study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of CRT in combination with optimal medical therapy (OMT) relative to patients with OMT alone.

Methods

A two-component model was used to analyze lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) from a healthcare perspective. Clinical inputs were mostly obtained from meta-analysis of landmark trials. All cost-related data, risk of non-cardiovascular death and readmission rate were based on Thai HF data. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3%. Findings were reported as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A variety of sensitivity analyses were also performed.

Results

CRT plus OMT costs more than OMT (123,279 vs 11,165 THB or 3,972.90 vs 359.81 USD), and is more effective (3.57 QALYs vs 2.49 QALYs), yielding an ICER of 104,325 THB per QALY (3,362.07 USD per QALY). CRT was cost-effective at the Thai willingness to pay threshold of 160,000 THB per QALY (5,156.30 USD per QALY). The results were sensitive to cost of CRT maintenance.

Conclusion

The use of CRT was associated with a cost-effectiveness ratio below generally accepted benchmarks for therapeutic interventions of 160,000 THB per QALY (5,156.30 USD per QALY). This suggests that the clinical benefits of CRT can be achieved at a reasonable cost in Thai HF patients.