Hospitalization rates and associated cost analysis of cardiac resynchronization therapy with an implantable defibrillator and quadripolar vs. bipolar left ventricular leads: a comparative effectiveness study

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

Aims

This study compares, from a prospective, observational, non-randomized registry, the post-implant hospitalization rates and associated healthcare resource utilization of cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) patients with quadripolar (QUAD) vs. bipolar (BIP) left ventricular (LV) leads.

Methods and results

Between January 2009 and December 2012, 193 consecutive patients receiving de novo CRT-D implants with either a QUAD (n = 116) or a BIP (n = 77) LV lead were enrolled at implant and followed until July 2013 at a single-centre, university hospital. Post-implant hospitalizations related to heart failure (HF) or LV lead surgical revision and associated payer costs were identified using ICD-9-CM diagnosis and procedure codes. Italian national reimbursement rates were determined. Propensity scores were estimated using a logistic regression model based upon 11 pre-implant baseline characteristics and were used to derive a 1 : 1 matched cohort of QUAD (n = 77) and BIP (n = 77) patients. Hospitalization rates for the two groups were compared using negative binomial regression and associated payer costs were compared using non-parametric bootstrapping (×10 000) and one-sided hypothesis test. Hospitalization rates of the QUAD group [0.15/ patient (pt)-year] were lower than those of the BIP group (0.32/ pt-year); the incidence rate ratio was 0.46, P = 0.04. The hospitalization costs for the QUAD group (434 ± 128 €/pt-year) were lower than those for the BIP group (1136 ± 362 €/pt-year). The average difference was 718 €/pt-year, P = 0.016.

Conclusions

In this comparative effectiveness assessment of well-matched groups of CRT-D patients with quadripolar and bipolar LV leads, QUAD patients experienced a lower rate of hospitalizations for HF and LV lead surgical revision, and a lower cost burden. This has important implications for LV pacing lead choice.

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles