Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a treatment of proven efficacy for selected patients with heart failure and associated conduction disturbances. The increasing financial burden that healthcare systems face has increased the interest in cost-effectiveness and cost-utility estimates, focused on devices with defibrillation capabilities (CRT-D), with a high upfront cost, as well as on simpler devices providing only biventricular pacing (CRT-P). Available economic estimates are largely dependent on data source, assumptions, modelling technique, time horizon, and perspective, leading to some variability in cost-effectiveness and cost-utility estimates. As a whole, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility estimates of both CRT-P and CRT-D improve as the time horizon examined is lengthened and appear to be below US$50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, a threshold value commonly adopted for coverage of healthcare interventions in the USA and quite comparable with similar thresholds used within Europe. Limited data are available on the comparative cost-effectiveness or cost-utility of CRT-P and CRT-D devices. Moreover, more data on the effectiveness and long-term benefits of CRT-D and CRT-P are needed in order to estimate better the value of these treatments in the 'real world, as well as for attempts to improve cost-effectiveness through improved patient selection.

Boriani G, Biffi M, Martignani C, Valzania C, Diemberger I, Bertini M, et al. (2009). Is cardiac resynchronization therapy cost-effective?. EUROPACE, 11 Suppl 5, v93-v97 [10.1093/europace/eup274].

Is cardiac resynchronization therapy cost-effective?

BORIANI, GIUSEPPE;BIFFI, MAURO;MARTIGNANI, CRISTIAN;VALZANIA, CINZIA;DIEMBERGER, IGOR;BERTINI, MATTEO;DOMENICHINI, GIULIA;ZIACCHI, MATTEO;BRANZI, ANGELO
2009

Abstract

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a treatment of proven efficacy for selected patients with heart failure and associated conduction disturbances. The increasing financial burden that healthcare systems face has increased the interest in cost-effectiveness and cost-utility estimates, focused on devices with defibrillation capabilities (CRT-D), with a high upfront cost, as well as on simpler devices providing only biventricular pacing (CRT-P). Available economic estimates are largely dependent on data source, assumptions, modelling technique, time horizon, and perspective, leading to some variability in cost-effectiveness and cost-utility estimates. As a whole, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility estimates of both CRT-P and CRT-D improve as the time horizon examined is lengthened and appear to be below US$50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, a threshold value commonly adopted for coverage of healthcare interventions in the USA and quite comparable with similar thresholds used within Europe. Limited data are available on the comparative cost-effectiveness or cost-utility of CRT-P and CRT-D devices. Moreover, more data on the effectiveness and long-term benefits of CRT-D and CRT-P are needed in order to estimate better the value of these treatments in the 'real world, as well as for attempts to improve cost-effectiveness through improved patient selection.
2009
Boriani G, Biffi M, Martignani C, Valzania C, Diemberger I, Bertini M, et al. (2009). Is cardiac resynchronization therapy cost-effective?. EUROPACE, 11 Suppl 5, v93-v97 [10.1093/europace/eup274].
Boriani G; Biffi M; Martignani C; Valzania C; Diemberger I; Bertini M; Domenichini G; Ziacchi M; Branzi A
File in questo prodotto:
Eventuali allegati, non sono esposti

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/78559
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 2
  • Scopus 21
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 17
social impact