SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Global evidence on the cost-effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy for heart failure: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aim: Heart failure (HF) remains a global public health challenge, with high morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs despite advances in pharmacological and interventional therapies. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces symptoms, hospitalizations, and mortality, but is associated with increased healthcare costs. This review aims to evaluate the existing evidence on the cost-effectiveness of CRT compared with standard optimal medical therapy. Methods: A systematic search of Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus was conducted from January 2004 up to July 2025 to identify studies reporting economic outcomes such as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for CRT treatment in addition to optimal medical therapy (OMT) compared to OMT only. The study was registered in PROSPERO. We included studies comparing CRT plus OMT with OMT alone, as well as CRT-P vs. CRT-D. Costs were converted to 2024 euros (€) and assessed against country-specific willingness-to-pay thresholds. Results: Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final review CRT + OMT proved to be highly cost-effective across multiple healthcare settings: ICERs ranged from €3,048-€71,447/QALY gained. CRT-D compared with CRT-P showed more cost variability, with ICERs varying between €24,909-€105,572/QALY gained, often exceeding accepted country-specific willingness-to-pay thresholds. Conclusions: This review confirms that CRT, particularly CRT-P, is a cost-effective treatment for patients with HFrEF who remain symptomatic despite OMT. CRT-D had variable cost-effectiveness, thus should be reserved for selected high-risk patients. These findings support prioritizing CRT-P as a high-value therapy within advanced heart failure care. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD420251171292, PROSPERO CRD420251171292.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.