Exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis of cardiac resynchronization therapy with systematic device optimization vs. standard (non-systematic) optimization: a multinational economic evaluation

Table 1 Base case clinical model input data assumptions

Model variable									Source
	Month 1	Month 3	Month 6	Year1	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4	Year 5
All-cause mortality^a
Systematic CRT optimization	0.0 %	0.0 %	3.0 %	6.8 %	17.8 %^a	25.8 %	33.8 %	40.8 %	[18, 20], assumption
Standard CRT optimization	1.5 %	3.0 %	6.8 %	14.3 %	25.3 %	33.3 %	41.3 %	48.3 %	[18, 20]
HF hospitalization^b
Systematic CRT optimization	0.0 %	3.0 %	7.6 %	12.2 %	22.5 %	32.7 %	43.0 %	52.4 %	[18], assumption
Standard CRT optimization	3.8 %	8.3 %	13.5 %	23.3 %	42.9 %	62.5 %	82.1 %	100.0 %	[18], assumption
Mean NYHA class	Baseline	Month 3	Month 6	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4	Year 5
Systematic CRT optimization									[18], assumption
NYHA I	0 %	16.9 %	26.6 %	22.2 %	22.2 %	22.2 %	22.2 %	22.2 %
NYHA II	10.9 %	75.4 %	65.6 %	63.5 %	63.5 %	63.5 %	63.5 %	63.5 %
NYHA III	87.5 %	7.7 %	7.8 %	14.3 %	14.3 %	14.3 %	14.3 %	14.3 %
NYHA IV	1.6 %	0 %	0 %	0 %	0 %	0 %	0 %	0 %
Standard CRT optimization									[18], assumption
NYHA I	0 %	8.5 %	18.7 %	13.8 %	13.8 %	13.8 %	13.8 %	13.8 %
NYHA II	6.9 %	62.7 %	58.0 %	56.9 %	56.9 %	56.9 %	56.9 %	56.9 %
NYHA III	86.1 %	28.0 %	20.5 %	27.5 %	27.5 %	27.5 %	27.5 %	27.5 %
NYHA IV	6.9 %	0.8 %	2.7 %	1.8 %	1.8 %	1.8 %	1.8 %	1.8 %
Health utilities by NYHA class
NYHA class I	0.815								[19]
NYHA class II	0.720								[19]
NYHA class III	0.590								[19]
NYHA class IV	0.508								[19]
Death	0								[19]

^aIn accordance with the conservative approach adopted for the present analysis, the incremental increase in mortality after 1 year for the systematic CRT optimization group was assumed to be identical to that applied to the standard CRT optimization group, i.e. benefits of CRT optimization on mortality were assumed to cease after one year of follow-up
^bValues are presented as cumulative probability

ISSN: 2191-1991