Abstract
Background
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment for heart failure (HF) with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and prolonged QRS interval. However, one third of patients do not benefit from treatment. This study compares the heart failure hospitalization (HFH) rates and corresponding costs between responders and non-responders to CRT.
Methods
At a single center in New Jersey, we enrolled patients with de novo CRT-D implants between January 2011 and July 2013. Medical history at implant and all subsequent hospitalizations were collected. A retrospective chart review of the cardiology visit at or closest to 12 months post-CRT implant was performed, and patients were classified into responders and non-responders. Universal billing records (UB-04), ICD-9-CM diagnoses, and procedure codes were used to determine whether each hospitalization was due to HF. For each heart failure hospitalization (HFH), an MS-DRG-based US national average Medicare reimbursement was determined. HFH rates and associated payor costs were compared between responders and non-responders using negative binomial regression and non-parametric bootstrapping (×10,000), respectively.
Results
CRT response was determined in 135 patients (n = 103 responders, n = 32 non-responders, average follow-up 1.4 years). Demographics, pre-implant HF characteristics, NYHA Class, QRS duration, ejection fraction (EF), left bundle branch block (LBBB) status, and co-morbidities were not statistically different between the two groups. The HFH rate was significantly lower in responders (0.43/patient year) compared to non-responders (0.96/patient year, IRR = 0.45, 95 % CI (0.23 0.90), P = 0.0197). Average US national Medicare reimbursement for the responder group (US$7205/patient year) was 48 % lower than that for the non-responder group (US$13,861/patient year, P = 0.035).
Conclusion
In this single-center retrospective study, responders to CRT had significantly lower rates of post-implant heart failure hospitalization rate and reduced associated payor costs compared to non-responders. Therapies that increase CRT response rates can substantially reduce healthcare utilization.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Massie BM, Shah NB. Evolving trends in the epidemiologic factors of heart failure: rationale for preventive strategies and comprehensive disease management. Am Heart J. 1997;133:703–12.
Heidenreich PA, Albert NM, Allen LA, Bluemke DA, Butler J, Fonarow GC, et al. Forecasting the impact of heart failure in the United States: a policy statement from the American Heart Association. Circ Heart Fail. 2013;6(3):606–19.
Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, et al. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2016 Update A Report From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2015;133:e38–e360.
Luis ER, Eduardo GB, Livia G, Carísi AP. Cost-effectiveness of heart failure therapies. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2013;10:338–54.
Giamouzis G, Kalogeropoulos A, Georgiopoulou V, Laskar S, Smith AL, Dunbar S, et al. Hospitalization epidemic Event Rate Difference (HFHrateCRT-NR - HFHrateCRT-R) in patients with heart failure: risk factors, risk prediction, knowledge gaps, and future directions. J Card Fail. 2011;17(1):54–75.
Dharmarajan K et al. Diagnoses and Timing of 30-Day Readmissions After Hospitalization for Heart Failure, Acute Myocardial Infarction, or Pneumonia. JAMA. 2013;309:4.
Chung ES, Bartone C, Daly K, Menon S, McDonald M. The Relationship Among Heart Failure Disease Management, Quality of Care, and Hospitalizations. J Med Pract Manage. 2015;31(3):172–8.
Hunt SA, Abraham WT, Chin MH, Feldman AM, Francis GS, Ganiats TG, et al. ACC/AHA 2005 guideline update for the diagnosis and management of chronic heart failure in the adult a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Heart Failure): developed in collaboration with the American College of Chest Physicians and the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society. Circulation. 2005;112(12):e154–235.
Abraham WT et al. Cardiac Resynchronization in Chronic Heart Failure. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(24):1845–53.
Merchant FM et al. Impact of segmental left ventricle lead position on cardiac resynchronization therapy outcomes. Heart Rhythm. 2010;7(5):639–44.
Singh JP et al. Left Ventricular Lead Position and Clinical Outcome in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT) Trial. Circulation. 2011;123(11):1159–66.
Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, Fong A, Burnand B, Luthi JC, et al. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care. 2005;43:1130–9.
Chin MH, Goldman L. Correlates of early hospital readmission or death in patients with congestive heart failure. Am J Cardiol. 1997;79(12):1640–4.
Kremers MS, Hammill SC, Berul CI, Koutras C, Curtis JS, Wang Y, et al. The National ICD Registry Report: version 2.1 including leads and pediatrics for years 2010 and 2011. Heart Rhythm. 2013;10(4):e59–65.
Daubert JC, Saxon L, Adamson PB, Auricchio A, Berger RD, Beshai JF, et al. 2012 EHRA/HRS expert consensus statement on cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure: implant and follow-up recommendations and management. Europace. 2012;14(9):1236–86.
Anand IS, Carson P, Galle E, Song E, Boehmer J, Ghali JK, et al. Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Reduces the Risk of Hospitalizations in Patients With Advanced Heart Failure: Results From the Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing and Defibrillation in Heart Failure (COMPANION) Trial. Circulation. 2009;119:969–77.
Gold MR, Padhiar A, Mealing S, Sidhu MK, Tsintzos SI, Abraham WT. Long-Term Extrapolation of Clinical Benefits Among Patients With Mild Heart Failure Receiving Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Analysis of the 5-Year Follow-Up From the REVERSE Study. JACC Heart Fail. 2015;3(9):691–700.
Gorcsan III J, Sogaard P, Bax JJ, Singh JP, Abraham WT, Borer JS, et al. Association of persistent or worsened echocardiographic dyssynchrony with unfavourable clinical outcomes in heart failure patients with narrow QRS width: a subgroup analysis of the EchoCRT trial. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:49–59.
Dall TM, Blanchard TD, Gallo PD, Semilla AP. The economic impact of Medicare Part D on congestive heart failure. Am J Manag Care. 2013;19(6 Suppl):s97–100.
Pappone C, Calovic Z, Vicedomini G, Cuko A, McSpadden L, Ryu K, et al. Improving cardiac resynchronization therapy response with multipoint left ventricular pacing: 12 month follow-up study. Heart Rhythm. 2015;12:1250–8.
Pappone C, Calovic Z, Cuko A, McSpadden L, Ryu K, Jordan CD, et al. Multipoint left ventricular pacing provides additional echocardiographic benefit to responders and non-responders to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy. Eu Heart Journal. 2015;17:A12–7.
Menardi E, Ballari GP, Goletto C, Rossetti G, Vado A. Characterization of Ventricular activation pattern and acute hemodynamics during multipoint left ventricular pacing. Heart Rhythm. 2015;12:1762–9.
Birnie D, Lemke B, Aonuma K, Krum H, Lee KLF, Gasparini M, et al. Clinical outcomes with synchronized left ventricular pacing: analysis of the adaptive CRT trial. Heart Rhythm. 2013;10(9):1368–74.
Johnson EK, Nelson CP. Utility and pitfalls in the use of administrative databases for outcomes assessment. J Urol. 2013;190(1):17.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Riddhi Shah, JoEllen Schmidt, and Lisa Cruser for their contribution to the study execution.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
The local Institutional Review Board approved the study and all the participating individuals consented to participate in the study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Corbisiero, R., Buck, D.C., Muller, D. et al. What is the cost of non-response to cardiac resynchronization therapy? Hospitalizations and healthcare utilization in the CRT-D population. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 47, 189–195 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-016-0180-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-016-0180-z