Abstract Aims Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established treatment for heart failure. There is contradictory evidence whether defibrillator capability improves prognosis in patients receiving CRT. We compared the survival of patients undergoing de novo implantation of a CRT with defibrillator (CRT-D) option and CRT with pacemaker (CRT-P) in a large health claims database. Methods and results Using health claims data of a major German statutory health insurance, we analysed patients with de novo CRT implantation from 2014 to 2019 without indication for defibrillator implantation for secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death. We performed age-adjusted Cox proportional hazard regression and entropy balancing to calculate weights to control for baseline imbalances. The analysis comprised 847 CRT-P and 2722 CRT-D patients. Overall, 714 deaths were recorded during a median follow-up of 2.35 years. A higher cumulative incidence of all-cause death was observed in the initial unadjusted Kaplan–Meier time-to-event analysis [hazard ratio (HR): 1.63, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.38–1.92]. After adjustment for age, HR was 1.13 (95% CI: 0.95–1.35) and after entropy balancing 0.99 (95% CI: 0.81–1.20). No survival differences were found in different age groups. The results were robust in sensitivity analyses. Conclusion In a large health claims database of CRT implantations performed in a contemporary setting, CRT-P treatment was not associated with inferior survival compared with CRT-D. Age differences accounted for the greatest part of the survival difference that was observed in the initial unadjusted analysis.

Abstract Background In Germany, CRT devices with defibrillator capability (CRT-D) have become the predominant treatment strategy for patients with heart failure and cardiac dyssynchrony. However, according to current guidelines, most patients would also be eligible for the less expensive CRT pacemaker (CRT-P). We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis for CRT-P devices compared to CRT-D devices from a German payer’s perspective. Methods Longitudinal health claims data from 3569 patients with de novo CRT implantation from 2014 to 2019 were used to parametrise a cohort Markov model. Model outcomes were costs and effectiveness measured in terms of life years. Transition probabilities were derived from multivariable parametric survival regression that controlled for baseline differences of CRT-D and CRT-P patients. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results The Markov model predicted a median survival of 84 months for CRT-P patients and 92 months for CRT-D patients. In the base case, CRT-P devices incurred incremental costs of € − 13,093 per patient and 0.30 incremental life years were lost. The ICER was € 43,965 saved per life year lost. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, uncertainty regarding the effectiveness was observed but not regarding costs. Conclusion This modelling study illustrates the uncertainty of the higher effectiveness of CRT-D devices compared to CRT-P devices. Given the difference in incremental costs between CRT-P and CRT-D treatment, there would be significant potential cost savings to the healthcare system if CRT-D devices were restricted to patients likely to benefit from the additional defibrillator.