Cost-Effectiveness of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Plus an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator in Patients With Heart Failure: A Systematic Review Publisher



Teimourizad A¹ ; Rezapour A² ; Sadeghian S³ ; Tajdini M³ Show Affiliations
Source: Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation Published:2021

Abstract

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. © 2021, The Author(s).