The BLISTER Score: A Novel, Externally Validated Tool for Predicting Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections, and Its Cost-Utility Implications for Antimicrobial Envelope Use.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial envelopes reduce the incidence of cardiac implantable electronic device infections, but their cost restricts routine use in the United Kingdom. Risk scoring could help to identify which patients would most benefit from this technology. METHODS: A novel risk score (BLISTER [Blood results, Long procedure time, Immunosuppressed, Sixty years old (or younger), Type of procedure, Early re-intervention, Repeat procedure]) was derived from multivariate analysis of factors associated with cardiac implantable electronic device infection. Diagnostic utility was assessed against the existing PADIT score (Prior procedure, Age, Depressed renal function, Immunocompromised, Type of procedure) in both standard and high-risk external validation cohorts, and cost-utility models examined different BLISTER and PADIT score thresholds for TYRX (Medtronic; Minneapolis, MN) antimicrobial envelope allocation. RESULTS: In a derivation cohort (n=7383), cardiac implantable electronic device infection occurred in 59 individuals within 12 months of a procedure (event rate, 0.8%). In addition to the PADIT score constituents, lead extraction (hazard ratio, 3.3 [95% CI, 1.9-6.1]; P<0.0001), C-reactive protein >50 mg/L (hazard ratio, 3.0 [95% CI, 1.4-6.4]; P=0.005), reintervention within 2 years (hazard ratio, 10.1 [95% CI, 5.6-17.9]; P<0.0001), and top-quartile procedure duration (hazard ratio, 2.6 [95% CI, 1.6-4.1]; P=0.001) were independent predictors of infection. The BLISTER score demonstrated superior discriminative performance versus PADIT in the standard risk (n=2854, event rate: 0.8%, area under the curve, 0.82 versus 0.71; P=0.001) and high-risk validation cohorts (n=1961, event rate: 2.0%, area under the curve, 0.77 versus 0.69; P=0.001), and in all patients (n=12 198, event rate: 1%, area under the curve, 0.8 versus 0.75, P=0.002). In decision-analytic modeling, the optimum scenario assigned antimicrobial envelopes to patients with BLISTER scores ≥6 (10.8%), delivering a significant reduction in infections (relative risk reduction, 30%; P=0.036) within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-utility thresholds (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, £18 446). CONCLUSIONS: The BLISTER score (https://qxmd.com/calculate/calculator_876/the-blister-score-for-cied-infection) was a valid predictor of cardiac implantable electronic device infection, and could facilitate cost-effective antimicrobial envelope allocation to high-risk patients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of leadless cardiac resynchronization therapy.

BACKGROUND: The Wireless Stimulation Endocardially for CRT (WiSE-CRT) system is a novel technology used to treat patients with dyssynchronous heart failure (HF) by providing leadless cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Observational studies have demonstrated its safety and efficacy profile, however, the treatment cost-effectiveness has not previously been examined. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness evaluation of the WiSE-CRT System was performed using a cohort-based economic model adopting a "proportion in state" structure. In addition to the primary analysis, scenario analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed to test for uncertainty in input parameters. Outcomes were quantified in terms of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) differences. RESULTS: The primary analysis demonstrated that treatment with the WiSE-CRT system is likely to be cost-effective over a lifetime horizon at a QALY reimbursement threshold of £20 000, with a net monetary benefit (NMB) of £3781 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness declines at time horizons shorter than 10 years. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that average system battery life had the largest impact on potential cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Within the model limitations, these findings support the use of WiSE-CRT in indicated patients from an economic standpoint. However, improving battery technology should be prioritized to maximize cost-effectiveness in times when health services are under significant financial pressures.

Noninvasive electrocardiographic assessment of ventricular activation and remodeling response to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) produces acute changes in electric resynchronization that can be measured noninvasively with electrocardiographic body surface mapping (ECGi). The relation between baseline acute electrophysiology metrics and their manipulation with CRT and reverse remodeling is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To test (ECGi) derived parameters of electrical activation as predictors of volumetric response to CRT. METHODS: ECGi was performed in 21 patients directly following CRT implant. Activation parameters (left ventricular total activation time [LVtat], global biventricular total activation time [VVtat], global left/right ventricular electrical synchrony [VVsync], and global left ventricular dispersion of activation times [LVdisp]) were measured at baseline and following echocardiographically optimized CRT. Remodeling response (>15% reduction left ventricular end-systolic volume) was assessed 6 months post CRT. RESULTS: Patients were aged 68.9 ± 12.1 years, 81% were male, and 57% were ischemic. Baseline measures of dyssynchrony were more pronounced in left bundle branch block (LBBB) vs non-LBBB. ECGi demonstrated a trend of greater interventricular dyssynchrony between responders and nonresponders that did not reach statistical significance (VVsync: -45.7 ± 22.4 ms vs -25.1 ± 29.3 ms, P = .227). Remaining activation parameters were similar between responders and nonresponders (VVtat 101 ± 22.0 ms vs 98.9 ± 23.4 ms, P = .838; LVtat 86.4 ± 17.1 ms vs 85.1 ± 27.7 ms, P = .904; LVdisp 28.2 ± 6.3 ms vs 27.0 ± 8.7 ms, P = .726). In volumetric responders activation parameters were significantly improved with CRT compared to nonresponders: VV sync (-45.67 ± 22.41 ms vs 2.33±18.87 ms, P = .001), VVtat (101 ± 22.04 ms vs 71 ± 14.01 ms, P = .002), LVtat (86.44 ± 17.15 ms vs 67.67 ± 11.31 ms, P = .006), and LVdisp (28.22 ± 6.3 ms vs 21.56 ± 4.45 ms, P = .008). CONCLUSION: Baseline ECGi activation times did not predict CRT volumetric response. Volumetric responders exhibited significant improvements in ECGi-derived metrics with CRT. ECGi does not select CRT candidates but may be a useful adjunct to guide left ventricle lead implants and to perform postimplant CRT optimization.

Cost-effectiveness of a risk-stratified approach to cardiac resynchronisation therapy defibrillators (high versus low) at the time of generator change.

OBJECTIVE: Responders to cardiac resynchronisation therapy whose device has a defibrillator component and who do not receive a therapy in the lifetime of the first generator have a very low incidence of appropriate therapy after box change. We investigated the cost implications of using a risk stratification tool at the time of generator change resulting in these patients being reimplanted with a resynchronisation pacemaker. METHODS: A decision tree was created using previously published data which had demonstrated an annualised appropriate defibrillator therapy risk of 2.33%. Costs were calculated at National Health Service (NHS) national tariff rates (2016-2017). EQ-5D utility values were applied to device reimplantations, admissions and mortality data, which were then used to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over 5 years. RESULTS: At 5 years, the incremental cost of replacing a resynchronisation defibrillator device with a second resynchronisation defibrillator versus resynchronisation pacemaker was £5045 per patient. Incremental QALY gained was 0.0165 (defibrillator vs pacemaker), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £305 712 per QALYs gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis resulted in an ICER of £313 612 (defibrillator vs pacemaker). For reimplantation of all patients with a defibrillator rather than a pacemaker to yield an ICER of less than £30 000 per QALY gained (current NHS cut-off for approval of treatment), the annual arrhythmic event rate would need to be 9.3%. The budget impact of selective replacement was a saving of £2 133 985 per year. CONCLUSIONS: Implanting low-risk patients with a resynchronisation defibrillator with the same device at the time of generator change is not cost-effective by current NHS criteria. Further research is required to understand the impact of these findings on individual patients at the time of generator change.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Quadripolar Versus Bipolar Left Ventricular Leads for Cardiac Resynchronization Defibrillator Therapy in a Large, Multicenter UK Registry.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of quadripolar versus bipolar cardiac resynchronization defibrillator therapy systems. BACKGROUND: Quadripolar left ventricular (LV) leads for cardiac resynchronization therapy reduce phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) and are associated with reduced mortality compared with bipolar leads. METHODS: A total of 606 patients received implants at 3 UK centers (319 Q, 287 B), between 2009 and 2014; mean follow-up was 879 days. Rehospitalization episodes were costed at National Health Service national tariff rates, and EQ-5D utility values were applied to heart failure admissions, acute coronary syndrome events, and mortality data, which were used to estimate quality-adjusted life-year differences over 5 years. RESULTS: Groups were matched with regard to age and sex. Patients with quadripolar implants had a lower rate of hospitalization than those with bipolar implants (42.6% vs. 55.4%; p = 0.002). This was primarily driven by fewer hospital readmissions for heart failure (51 [16%] vs. 75 [26.1%], respectively, for quadripolar vs. bipolar implants; p = 0.003) and generator replacements (9 [2.8%] vs. 19 [6.6%], respectively; p = 0.03). Hospitalization for suspected acute coronary syndrome, arrhythmia, device explantation, and lead revisions were similar. This lower health-care utilization cost translated into a cumulative 5-year cost saving for patients with quadripolar systems where the acquisition cost was <£932 (US $1,398) compared with bipolar systems. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis results mirrored the deterministic calculations. For the average additional price of £1,200 (US $1,800) over a bipolar system, the incremental cost-effective ratio was £3,692 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (US $5,538), far below the usual willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 (US $30,000). CONCLUSIONS: In a UK health-care 5-year time horizon, the additional purchase price of quadripolar cardiac resynchronization defibrillator therapy systems is largely offset by lower subsequent event costs up to 5 years after implantation, which makes this technology highly cost-effective compared with bipolar systems.