Search

Aims: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established treatment for heart failure. There is contradictory evidence whether defibrillator capability improves prognosis in patients receiving CRT. We compared the survival of patients undergoing de novo implantation of a CRT with defibrillator (CRT-D) option and CRT with pacemaker (CRT-P) in a large health claims database., Methods and Results: Using health claims data of a major German statutory health insurance, we analysed patients with de novo CRT implantation from 2014 to 2019 without indication for defibrillator implantation for secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death. We performed age-adjusted Cox proportional hazard regression and entropy balancing to calculate weights to control for baseline imbalances. The analysis comprised 847 CRT-P and 2722 CRT-D patients. Overall, 714 deaths were recorded during a median follow-up of 2.35 years. A higher cumulative incidence of all-cause death was observed in the initial unadjusted Kaplan-Meier time-to-event analysis [hazard ratio (HR): 1.63, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.38-1.92]. After adjustment for age, HR was 1.13 (95% CI: 0.95-1.35) and after entropy balancing 0.99 (95% CI: 0.81-1.20). No survival differences were found in different age groups. The results were robust in sensitivity analyses., Conclusion: In a large health claims database of CRT implantations performed in a contemporary setting, CRT-P treatment was not associated with inferior survival compared with CRT-D. Age differences accounted for the greatest part of the survival difference that was observed in the initial unadjusted analysis., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Introduction: This study investigates the runtime and costs of biventricular defibrillators (CRT-D) and biventricular pacemakers (CRT-P). Accurate estimates of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device runtime across all manufactures are rare, especially for CRT-P. Methods: Health claims data of a large nationwide German health insurance was used to analyze CRT device runtime. We defined device runtime as the time between the date of implantation and the date of generator change or removal. The median costs for implantation, change, and removal of a CRT device were calculated accordingly. Results: In total, the data set comprises 17,826 patients. A total of 4,296 complete runtimes for CRT-D devices and 429 complete runtimes for CRT-P devices were observed. Median device runtime was 6.04 years for CRT-D devices and 8.16 years for CRT-P devices (log-rank test p<0.0001). The median cost of implantation for a CRT-D device was 14,270 EUR, and for a CRT-P device 9,349 EUR. Conclusions: Compared to CRT-P devices, CRT-D devices had a significantly shorter device runtime of about two years. Moreover, CRT-D devices were associated with higher cost. The study provides important findings that can be utilized by cost-effectiveness analyses., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Hadwiger et al.)

Background: Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) is a well-established form of treatment for patients with heart failure and cardiac dyssynchrony. There are two different types of CRT devices: the biventricular pacemaker (CRT-P) and the biventricular defibrillator (CRT-D). The latter is more complex but also more expensive. For the majority of patients who are eligible for CRT, both devices are appropriate according to current guidelines. The purpose of this study was to conduct a cost-utility analysis for CRT-D compared to CRT-P from a German payer's perspective., Methods: A cohort Markov-model was developed to assess average costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) for CRT-D and CRT-P. The model consisted of six stages: one for the device implementation, one for the absorbing state death, and two stages ("Stable" and "Hospital") for either a CRT device or medical therapy. The time horizon was 20 years. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were conducted., Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CRT-D compared with CRT-P was €24,659 per additional QALY gained. In deterministic sensitivity analysis, the survival advantage of CRT-D to CRT-P was the most influential input parameter. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis 96% of the simulated cases were more effective but also more costly., Conclusions: Therapy with CRT-D compared to CRT-P resulted in an additional gain of QALYs, but was more expensive. In addition, the ICER was subject to uncertainty, especially due to the uncertainty in the survival benefit. A randomised controlled trial and subgroup analyses would be desirable to further inform decision making.

Copyright of GMS German Medical Science is the property of German Medical Science Publishing House gGmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)