Conduction System Pacing vs Biventricular Pacing in Chronic Heart Failure: Protocol for the Economic Analysis of the PhysioSync-HF Trial.

backgroundConduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), with potential clinical benefits and lower costs. PhysioSync-HF is a multicenter, randomized trial comparing these strategies from both clinical and economic perspectives in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

objectiveTo describe the rationale and design of the trial-based economic evaluation embedded within the PhysioSync-HF trial.

methodsThe PhysioSync-HF trial enrolled 179 patients with 1-year follow-up. Procedural cost data will be collected using a time-driven activity-based costing approach. Costs associated with the device, adverse clinical events, and ambulatory care during follow-up will be estimated using resource-based accounting methods. Appropriate methods will address missing data, and statistical analyses will account for the skewed distribution of cost variables.

resultsThe primary economic outcome is the between-group difference in total direct medical costs per patient over the 1-year follow-up (CSP vs BVP). Secondary outcomes include component-level cost breakdowns of direct medical expenses and a budget impact analysis estimating the annual effect on Brazil's health care system if all eligible patients received CSP instead of BVP.

conclusionBy leveraging a multicenter cardiovascular trial to measure costs of CSP versus BVP, this economic evaluation aims to identify cost-saving opportunities that could expand equitable access to CRT for individuals with HFrEF in Brazil, while providing insights relevant to other health care settings worldwide.

trial registrationNCT05572736.