Comparative cost analysis of implanting devices in different cardiac resynchronization therapeutic strategies
Mengna Chen1, Jing Shi1, Yimin Zhang1
1The First Hospital of Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Background:
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established treatment option for heart failure patients. However, the implementation of triple-chamber pacemakers can be cost-prohibitive. His-Purkinje system pacing (HPSP) can also enable cardiac resynchronization, and it can be achieved with relatively inexpensive conventional pacemakers.
Hypothesis:
This article aims to comparatively evaluate the cost of implanting devices in different CRT strategies to provide meaningful guidance for clinical decision-making by electrophysiologists.
Methods:
Data was collected on the prices, designed life, and price/designed life of multiple mainstream models of CRT-P, CRT-D, dual-chamber pacemakers, and single-chamber pacemakers that were sold in the Chinese market in 2022. The prices, designed lives, and price/designed life of different pacemaker models were then compared.
Results:
The costs of CRT-P and CRT-D (13008.44 ± 2752.30 USD and 22043.36 ± 3676.25 USD) were significantly higher than those of conventional pacemakers (dual-chamber: 11142.39 ± 4273.85 USD and single-chamber: 5634.28 ± 2032.80 USD) (p < .05). Additionally, the price/designed life of conventional pacemakers (dual-chamber: 839.63 ± 258.62 US dollar/year and single-chamber: 435.86 ± 125.44 US dollar/year) was significantly better than that of CRT-P and CRT-D (1386.91 ± 266.73 and 2585.53 ± 520.27 US dollar/year, respectively) (p < .05).
Conclusion:
Conduction system pacing (CSP)-based CRT is more cost-effective than BVP-based CRT. Furthermore, CSP-based CRT can achieve cardiac resynchronization with conventional pacemakers and may be a good option for HF patients who do not need defibrillation.
