title: The long-term cost-effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-P) is an effective treatment for patients with heart failure and cardiac dyssynchrony with moderate or severe symptoms despite pharmacological therapy. The addition of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) function may further reduce the risk of sudden death. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of CRT-P compared with medical therapy (MT) alone, and the cost-effectiveness of CRT-ICD + MT compared with CRT-P + MT, on incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) and life year using data from two landmark clinical trials.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A Markov model with Monte Carlo simulation to assess costs, life years, and QALYs associated with CRT (+/- ICD) and MT in patients with heart failure and cardiac dyssynchrony, on the basis of a UK healthcare perspective was constructed. NYHA class distribution and transitions, associated health utilities, rates and cause of hospitalization and death were estimated from individual patient data from the CArdiac REsychronization in Heart Failure (CARE-HF trial). The estimated additional benefit on survival of an ICD was based on results from COMPANION. The base case analysis used 10 000 individual life-time simulations assuming a battery life of 6 years for CRT-P and 7 years for CRT-ICD. From a life-time perspective in a 65-year-old patient, the incremental cost-effectiveness of CRT-P compared with MT is 7538 euros (95% CI 5325-11,784 euros) per QALY gained and 7011euros (95% CI 5346-10,003 euros) per life year gained. The incremental cost-effectiveness of CRT-ICD compared with CRT-P is 47,909 euros (95% CI 35,703-79,438 euros) per QALY gained, and 35,864 euros (95% CI 26,709-56,353 euros) per life year gained.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Long-term treatment with CRT-P appears cost-effective compared with MT alone. From a life-time perspective, assuming a reasonable life expectancy when receiving effective treatment for heart failure, CRT-ICD may also be considered cost-effective when compared with CRT-P + MT.
authors.affiliation: Department of Primary Care and General Practice, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.
authors.forename: Guiqing
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Yao
authors.forename: Nick
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Freemantle
authors.forename: Melanie J
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Calvert
authors.forename: Stirling
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Bryan
authors.forename: Jean-Claude
authors.initials: JC
authors.lastname: Daubert
authors.forename: John G F
authors.initials: JG
authors.lastname: Cleland
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D002304:Cardiac Pacing, Artificial / Q000191:economics* / Q000401:mortality; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D016757:Death, Sudden, Cardiac / Q000517:prevention & control; D017147:Defibrillators, Implantable / Q000191:economics*; D006333:Heart Failure / Q000191:economics / Q000401:mortality / Q000628:therapy*; D006801:Humans; D008875:Middle Aged; D019057:Quality-Adjusted Life Years; D016019:Survival Analysis; D016896:Treatment Outcome