Key result
Remote monitoring after pacemaker replacement is linked to ~5.6 million CZK higher costs vs standard care.
Why the study?
The cost effectiveness of remote monitoring compared to outpatient follow-up after pacemaker replacement had not been established in the Czech Republic.
Does remote monitoring reduce costs compared to outpatient follow-up in patients after pacemaker replacement?
Observational (n=217)
No
Does remote monitoring reduce costs compared to outpatient follow-up in patients after pacemaker replacement?
Remote monitoring of patients after pacemaker replacement due to battery depletion does not reduce costs compared to standard outpatient follow-up from a healthcare payer perspective in the Czech Republic.
Does not support remote monitoring to reduce costs after pacemaker replacement; leaves open its value for outcomes or other settings.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Čurila et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Pacemaker replacement due to battery depletion (n=217). Remote monitoring vs. Standard outpatient follow-up was evaluated on Total costs of follow-up from the perspective of the health care payer (in CZK) (5,595,922 CZK increase). Remote monitoring of patients after pacemaker replacement due to battery depletion is not cost-effective, costing 5,595,922 CZK more than standard outpatient follow-up.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: