Table 5.
Cumulative Total Cost of Implanting a Quadripolar Versus Bipolar CRTD for Different Acquisition Prices and Associated ICERs
| Additional Acquisition Cost of Quadripolar CRTD (£) | 5-Yr Incremental Cost of Quadripolar vs. Bipolar CRTD (£) | ICER of Quadripolar vs. Bipolar CRTD |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | −1,000 | Quadripolar dominates |
| 200 | −786 | Quadripolar dominates |
| 400 | −571 | Quadripolar dominates |
| 600 | −357 | Quadripolar dominates |
| 800 | −143 | Quadripolar dominates |
| 1,000 | 72 | £926 |
| 1,200 | 286 | £3,692 |
| 1,400 | 501 | £6,458 |
| 1,600 | 715 | £9,224 |
| 1,800 | 929 | £11,990 |
| 2,000 | 1,144 | £14,756 |
| 2,200 | 1,358 | £17,522 |
| 2,400 | 1,572 | £20,288 |
CRTD = cardiac resynchronization defibrillator therapy device; ICER = incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; Quadripolar dominates = quadripolar CRTD is less costly and more effective than bipolar CRTD at 5 years. In this situation, ICERs are negative and not conventionally shown.