Less with More: Hospitalization Cost and Event Rates with Quadripolar versus Bipolar CRT-D System.

BackgroundThis is a comparative effectiveness study for cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) therapy enabled by quadripolar (QUAD) versus bipolar (BIP) left ventricular (LV) leads. Heart failure (HF) hospitalization (HFH) rates, associated costs, and 30-day readmissions after index HFH were compared. MethodsPatients with de novo LV leads implanted as part of a CRT-D system between January 2011 and August 2013 with 1-year follow-up were included. Medical history, dates, and locations of HFH were collected thereafter. Patients were divided based on LV lead model: QUAD or BIP. Universal billing records (UB-04) for each HFH and ICD-9-CM (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification) diagnoses/procedure codes were used to classify hospitalizations as HF or non-HF and calculate concurrent U.S. national-average medicare reimbursement. Rates, associated payer costs, and 30-day readmissions were then compared using nonparametric bootstrapping. ResultsBaseline characteristics (N = 69 QUAD and N = 56 BIP) were similar. The inpatient HFH for the QUAD group (0.20/patient-year) was lower than the BIP group (0.31/patient-year, incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.62, P = 0.036). The overall HFH rate for the inpatient or outpatient setting for QUAD (0.29/patient-year) was lower than the BIP group (0.42/patient-year, IRR = 0.69, P = 0.055). Average cost of HFH in QUAD ($4,428/patient-year) was lower than BIP ($7,354/patient-year), a 39.8% cost reduction (P = 0.026). The 30-day readmission rate was also lower in QUAD compared to BIP (19% vs 28%, IRR = 0.68, P = 0.18). ConclusionThis U.S. economic comparative study demonstrated that QUAD exhibited lower postimplant inpatient HFH rates and reduced healthcare utilization compared to BIP systems.