Objectives: The aim of the study was to combine clinical results from the European Cohort of the REVERSE study and costs associated with the addition of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) to optimal medical therapy (OMT) in patients with mild symptomatic (NYHA I-II) or asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction and markers of cardiac dyssynchrony in Spain.

Methods: A Markov model was developed with CRT + OMT (CRT-ON) versus OMT only (CRT-OFF) based on a retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis. Raw data was derived from literature and expert opinion, reflecting clinical and economic consequences of patient's management in Spain. Time horizon was 10 years. Both costs (euro 2010) and effects were discounted at 3 percent per annum.

Results: CRT-ON showed higher total costs than CRT-OFF; however, CRT reduced the length of hospitalization in ICU by 94 percent (0.006 versus 0.091 days) and general ward in by 34 percent (0.705 versus 1.076 days). Surviving CRT-ON patients (88.2 percent versus 77.5 percent) remained in better functional class longer, and they achieved an improvement of 0.9 life years (LYGs) and 0.77 years quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). CRT-ON proved to be cost-effective after 6 years, except for the 7th year due to battery depletion. At 10 years, the results were €18,431 per LYG and €21,500 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed CRT-ON was cost-effective in 75.4 percent of the cases at 10 years.

Conclusions: The use of CRT added to OMT represents an efficient use of resources in patients suffering from heart failure in NYHA functional classes I and II.

Objectives: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has recently been shown to reduce both mid-term and long-term mortality in patients with mild heart failure. Although proven effective, it is unclear whether CRT is cost-effective in low and middle-income countries (LMIC). Therefore, we set out to analyze the cost-effectiveness of CRT in Argentina in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class (FC) I or II heart failure (HF). We chose to compare patients receiving optimal medical treatment (OMT) and CRT with those patients receiving only OMT.

Methods: We constructed a Markov model with a cohort simulation, and a life-time horizon to assess costs, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained as a result of treatment with both CRT and OMT from an Argentine third party payer perspective. We included patients who met the following criteria: left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 40 percent, sinus rhythm with a QRS ≥ 120 msec, and NYHA FC I-II HF. The results were expressed as cost per life-year and QALY gained in international dollars (ID$) for the year 2009.

Results: For the base case analysis performed, we started at a fixed age of 65. After applying a 3 percent annual discount rate, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 38.005 ID$ per year of life gained and 34.185 ID$ per QALY gained.

Conclusions: Long-term treatment with CRT appears to be cost-effective in Argentina compared with patients treated solely with OMT. Similar analysis should be performed to determine if this treatment option is cost-effective in other LMIC.