August 1, 1986Annals of Internal Medicine
Single-Chamber and Dual-Chamber Cardiac Pacemakers
Key result
Dual-chamber pacemakers are $2500 more costly at implantation than single-chamber pacemakers, with the cumulative cost difference increasing to $5100 per patient over a 12-year period.
Why the study?
Does dual-chamber pacing compared to single-chamber pacing increase cumulative costs over a 12-year period in pacemaker recipients?
Population
Pacemaker recipients
Comparison
Dual-chamber cardiac pacemakers vs Single-chamber cardiac pacemakers
Design
Other
Follow-up
12 years (calculated)
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
May favor single-chamber devices to contain costs; leaves open whether benefits justify dual-chamber selection in broader populations.
Structured PICO
Does dual-chamber pacing compared to single-chamber pacing increase cumulative costs over a 12-year period in pacemaker recipients?
P
Population
Pacemaker recipients
E
Exposure
Dual-chamber cardiac pacemakers
C
Comparator
Single-chamber cardiac pacemakers
O
Outcome
Incremental cumulative cost over a 12-year period
Main Result
Effect estimate: $5100 incremental cost
Dual-chamber pacemakers incur significantly higher cumulative costs over 12 years compared to single-chamber devices, suggesting they should be reserved for patients with clear clinical indications.
Cite This Study
Mulley et al. (1986) studied Pacemaker recipient. Dual-chamber pacemakers vs. Single-chamber pacemakers was evaluated on Incremental cumulative cost ($5100 incremental cost). Dual-chamber pacemakers are $2500 more costly at implantation than single-chamber pacemakers, with the cumulative cost difference increasing to $5100 per patient over a 12-year period.