Projected longevities of cardiac implantable defibrillators: a retrospective analysis over the period 2007-17 and the impact of technological factors in determining longevity.

AIMS: Implanters of cardiac implantable electronic devices cannot easily choose devices by longevity as usually current models only have projected longevity data since those with known performance are obsolete. This study examines how projected device longevities are derived, the influencing factors, and their roles in guiding model choice. METHODS AND RESULTS: Ninety-eight implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) models released in Europe in 2007-17 were analysed for reported battery capacities, projected longevities for standardized settings stipulated by the French Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) and manufacturer-chosen settings. Battery capacities and HAS projected longevities increased during the study period. Based on current drain estimation, therapy functions consumed only a small portion (2-7%) of the battery energy for single- and dual-chamber ICDs, but up to 50% (from biventricular pacing) for CRT-Ds. Large differences exist between manufacturers and models both in terms of battery capacity and energy consumption. CONCLUSION: Battery capacity is not the sole driver of longevity for electronic implantable cardiac devices and, particularly for ICDs, the core function consume a large part of the battery energy even in the absence of therapy. Providing standardized current drain consumption in addition to battery capacity may provide more meaningful longevity information among implantable electronic cardiac devices.

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

BACKGROUND: Recent studies provide evidence of improved clinical benefits associated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) optimization. Our analysis explores the cost-effectiveness of systematically optimized (SO, 3 times a year) vs. non-systematically optimized (NSO, less than 3 times a year) CRT, whatever the echo optimization method used (manual or SonR® automatic). A longitudinal cohort model was developed to predict clinical and economic outcomes for SO vs. NSO strategies over 5 years. The analysis was performed from the payer perspective. Data from CLEAR study post-hoc analysis was used with 199 pts with CRT pacemaker (CRT-P). The main economic outcome measure was incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) expressed as cost per Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) gained. To assess the impact of data uncertainty, a sensitivity analysis was performed. The model also predicts outcomes for the two optimization strategies for CRT-D therapy vs. optimal medical treatment (OPT). RESULTS: At 1 year, ICERs for SO CRT vs. NSO CRT-P range between 22,226 (Spain) and 26,977 (Italy). Therefore, on the basis of a Willingness-To-Pay of 30,000 per QALY, the SO method develops into a cost effective strategy from 1 year, onwards. These favorable outcomes are supported by the sensitivity analysis. Systematic optimization of CRT-D might also improve the cost-effectiveness of this device therapy by 27 % to 30 % dependent on the country analyzed, at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Our economic evaluation shows promising health economic benefits associated with SO CRT. These preliminary findings need further confirmation.