Cost-Effectiveness Ratio Analysis of LBBaP Versus BVP in Heart Failure Patients With LBBB

Background: For the initial treatment strategy for patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) indications, whether to choose left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) or biventricular pacing (BVP) remains controversial. We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) of LBBaP and BVP in heart failure (HF) patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB). Methods: This observational study included HF patients with LBBB who underwent successful LBBaP or BVP. The primary outcomes were echocardiographic response (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] increase >= 5%), LVEF improvement, hospitalization costs, and CER (CER = cost/echocardiographic response rate). Secondary outcomes included other echocardiographic parameters, New York Heart Association (NYHA), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), pacemaker parameters, complications, ventricular arrhythmia (VA) events, HF hospitalization (HFH), and all-cause mortality. Results: A total of 130 patients (85 LBBaP and 45 BVP) were included (65.6 +/- 10.0 years, 70.77% men). The median follow-up period was 16(12,30), months. Compared with BVP, the LBBaP group showed a greater increase in LVEF (20.2% +/- 11.8% vs. 10.5% +/- 13.9%; p < 0.001), higher echocardiographic response rate (86.1% vs. 57.8%; p < 0.001), and lower hospitalization costs [$9707.7 (7751.2, 18,088.5) vs. $20,046.1 (18,840.1, 22,447.3); p < 0.0001]. The CER was 112.7 and 346.8 in LBBaP and BVP, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER = Delta cost/Delta echocardiographic response rate) was $-365.3/per 1% increase in effectiveness. LBBaP improved cardiac function more significantly than BVP. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes. Conclusions: LBBaP-CRT is more cost-effective than BVP, offering greater LVEF improvement, higher echocardiographic response rates, lower hospitalization costs, and more significantly improved cardiac function. These findings need large randomized clinical trials for further confirmation.