Short-term cost-utility analysis of biventricular cardiac resynchronization therapy in comparison with left bundle branch area pacing cardiac resynchronization therapy

Abstract

Abstract Background Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) is a well-established form of treatment for patients with heart failure and cardiac dyssynchrony. Recently, left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a more physiological alternative for biventricular pacing (BiVP) cardiac resynchronization therapy (1,2). Purpose The purpose of this study was to conduct a cost-utility analysis for LBBAP CRT, compared to BiVP CRT in a cohort of patients with heart failure from the Spanish health system perspective. Methods A multicenter prospective quasi-experimental study in which 44 consecutive patients underwent CRT was conducted. According to the study protocol, the four centers would perform their usual clinical practice: two out of them would perform conventional BiVP-CRT while the other half LBBAP-CRT. Intention-to-treat analysis was carried-out. Health outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), measured by the EuroQol-5D-5L questionnaire, which the patients were asked to complete at baseline and 12 weeks after the CRT device implantation. The total direct costs include device, leads, guidewires, introducer kits, sheats and operating theater time. The results were expressed as the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). In order to analyze the uncertainty of ICUR results, we performed a non-parametric bootstrapping with 1000 replications. Results The LBBAP procedure was attempted for a total of 26 consecutive patients (1 patient underwent rescue BiVP), while BiVP was attempted for 18 patients (2 patients switched to LBBAP). Mean QALYs over 3 months were 0.1914 ± 0.009 in the LBBAP CRT group and 0.1904 ± 0.0112 in the BiVP CRT. Improvements from baseline were greater in the LBBA CRT group but not statistically significant. The total costs at the end of the intervention were 7546.6 €± 602.15€ in the LBBAP CRT group and 16064.56€ ± 723.7€ in the BiVP CRT group. When excluding from the analysis the cases in which ICD was implanted, the mean difference in QALYs is 0.002; 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: -0.03 to 0.036) and the mean saving is -3.510.38 €. The LBBAP CRT leads to cost savings for the health system and similar QALYs outcomes; 95%CI: -6.660 to -360.71. Based on 1000 bootstrapping replication, the cost savings of using LBBAP vs BiVP occur in 99% of the simulations. Conclusion LBBAP CRT is an efficient alternative to BiVP CRT for cardiac resynchronization in patients with heart failure with similar results in terms of QALYs but with significant average savings per patient.Cost-utility plane for 1000 bootstrappedBaseline characteristics of patients