Modelling the health benefits and economic implications of implanting dual-chamber vs. single-chamber ventricular pacemakers in the UK.

AIMS

To estimate the consequences of managing bradycardia due to sinoatrial node disease or atrioventricular block with dual-chamber vs. single-chamber ventricular pacemakers.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A discrete-event simulation was conducted to predict outcomes over 5 years. Patients could develop post-operative complications, clinically relevant pacemaker syndrome leading to replacement of single-chamber with dual-chamber, atrial fibrillation (AF; which if chronic might require anticoagulants) or stroke. Survival, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), complications, and associated direct medical costs were estimated (2003 British Pounds pounds sterling). Identical patients were simulated after receiving a single-chamber device or a more expensive dual-chamber pacemaker. Probabilities of conditions were obtained from clinical trials. Benefits were discounted at 1.5% and costs at 6%. Post-operative complications increased from 6.4% with single-chamber to 7.7% with dual-chamber but AF decreased (22 vs. 18%) as did clinically relevant pacemaker symptoms (16.8 vs. 0%). Approximately 4300 pounds sterling were accrued per patient over 5 years. Additional health benefits with dual-chamber are achieved at a mean net cost of 43 pounds sterling per patient, leading to 0.09 QALY with a cost-effectiveness ratio of 477 pounds sterling/QALY.

CONCLUSION

Implanting the costlier device increases the cost of the initial operation; however, this is expected to be offset by a reduction in costs associated with re-operations and AF.