Table 5.
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (International € per LYs gained)a
| CRT-P versus OPT | CRT-D versus OPT | CRT-D versus CRT-P | CRT-D versus ICD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fox et al. [11] | – | – | – | – |
| Yao et al. [12] | €6291 | €32,179 | €32,179 | – |
| Aidelsburger et al. [13] | – | €168,040 | – | – |
| Bond et al. [14] | – | – | – | – |
| Callejo et al. [15] | €24,806 | – | €34,160 | – |
| Bertoldi et al. [16] | €22,088 | – | €46,890 | €34,054 |
| Neyt et al. [17] | €11,256 | – | €38,781 | – |
| Colquitt et al. [18] | €31,060b | €13,926b | €7375b | €21,411b |
aIndexed for purchasing power parities for GDP [26] and in 2014 prices
bCorresponds to population II in Colquitt et al. [18], i.e., patients with heart failure as a result of LVSD and cardiac dyssynchrony despite receiving OPT; Corresponds to population III in Colquitt et al. [18] i.e., population group II in (a) plus patients at risk of SDC due to ventricular arrhythmias despite receiving OPT)