Cost effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy in the Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing, and Defibrillation in Heart Failure (COMPANION) trial.

OBJECTIVES The analysis goal was to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for the Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing, and Defibrillation in Heart Failure (COMPANION) trial patients who received cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via pacemaker (CRT-P) or pacemaker-defibrillator (CRT-D) in combination with optimal pharmacological therapy (OPT) relative to patients with OPT alone. BACKGROUND In the COMPANION trial, CRT-P and CRT-D reduced the combined risk of all-cause mortality or first hospitalization among patients with advanced heart failure and intraventricular conduction delays, but the cost effectiveness of the therapy remains unknown. METHODS In this analysis, intent-to-treat trial data were modeled to estimate the cost effectiveness of CRT-D and CRT-P relative to OPT over a base-case seven-year treatment episode. Exponential survival curves were derived from trial data and adjusted by quality-of-life trial results to yield quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). For the first two years, follow-up hospitalizations were based on trial data. The model assumed equalized hospitalization rates beyond two years. Initial implantation and follow-up hospitalization costs were estimated using Medicare data. RESULTS Over two years, follow-up hospitalization costs were reduced by 29% for CRT-D and 37% for CRT-P. Extending the cost-effectiveness analysis to a seven-year base-case time period, the ICER for CRT-P was 19,600 dollars per QALY and the ICER for CRT-D was 43,000 dollars per QALY relative to OPT. CONCLUSIONS For the COMPANION trial patients, the use of CRT-P and CRT-D was associated with a cost-effectiveness ratio below generally accepted benchmarks for therapeutic interventions of 50,000 dollars per QALY to 100,000 dollars per QALY. This suggests that the clinical benefits of CRT-P and CRT-D can be achieved at a reasonable cost.