Key result
Dual-chamber pacemakers cost an incremental ~260 euros/QALY compared to single-chamber devices over five years.
Why the study?
The economic implications of managing bradycardia with dual-chamber versus single-chamber ventricular pacemakers from an Italian government perspective were not well established.
Are dual-chamber pacemakers cost-effective compared to single-chamber ventricular pacemakers in patients with bradycardia?
Are dual-chamber pacemakers cost-effective compared to single-chamber ventricular pacemakers in patients with bradycardia?
Effect estimate: ICER 260 euros/QALY
Dual-chamber pacemakers are highly cost-effective compared to single-chamber devices for bradycardia management in Italy, driven by reduced atrial fibrillation and pacemaker syndrome.
May favor dual-chamber pacemakers for bradycardia on cost-effectiveness; leaves open randomized confirmation.
OBJECTIVE: This study sought to estimate the economic implications of managing bradycardia due to sinoatrial node disease or atrioventricular block with dual compared to single-chamber ventricular pacemakers from an Italian government perspective. Dual-chamber pacemakers lower the risk of developing atrial fibrillation and pacemaker syndrome. METHODS: A discrete event simulation of a patient's course for 5 years following pacemaker implantation. Each patient may experience the following: complications, pacemaker syndrome, atrial fibrillation, stroke, or death. Risk functions were based on published data from the Canadian Trial of Physiologic Pacing and Mode Selection Trial in Sinus-Node Dysfunction. Identical patients were simulated after receiving a single or dual-chamber pacemaker. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and direct medical costs were estimated (2004 Euros). Benefits and costs were discounted at 3%. RESULTS: The model predicts that implanting the dual-chamber device in 1000 patients will prevent 36 patients from developing atrial fibrillation, 168 from developing severe pacemaker syndrome, but will lead to 13 additional hospitalizations with complications over 5 years. Health benefits are achieved at an incremental cost of 23 euros per patient, and 0.09 QALY, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of euro 260 euros/QALY. Sensitivity analysis shows that device replacement rates due to pacemaker syndrome have the biggest impact on the final results. CONCLUSIONS: In the long term, higher initial costs of the dual-chamber device may be offset by a reduction in costs associated with reoperations and atrial fibrillation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Deniz et al. (2008) studied bradycardia due to sinoatrial node disease or atrioventricular block (n=1,000). Dual-chamber ventricular pacemakers vs. Single-chamber ventricular pacemakers was evaluated on Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and direct medical costs (ICER 260 euros/QALY). Dual-chamber pacemakers for bradycardia yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 260 euros/QALY compared to single-chamber devices over 5 years.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: