Copyright © 1996 by the European Society of Cardiology.
© 1996 The European Society of Cardiology
Cost benefit analysis of single and dual chamber pacing for sick sinus syndrome and atrioventricular block
An economic sensitivity analysis of the literature
*Royal Brompton Hospital London, U.K.
Medtronic, Bakken Research Center B.V. Maastricht, The Netherlands
Received 19 November 1995; accepted 8 December 1995.
Correspondence: Dr R. Sutton, Royal Brompton Hospital, Sydney Street, London SW3 6NP, U.K.
Abstract
The benefits of dual (DDD) over single chamber pacing (VVI) have been demonstrated in haemodynamics, exercise capacity, quality of life and reduced complications in atrioventncular block and sick sinus syndrome.
The literature was reviewed to provide complication rates for dual and VV1 pacing. Cost calculations were based on United Kingdom 1991 prices. Over a 10-year period, a computer model calculated the incidence and prevalence of atrial fibrillation, stroke, permanent disability, heart failure and mortality in six patient categories: sick sinus syndrome paced VVI, sick sinus syndrome upgraded to DDD, sick sinus syndrome paced DDD from outset, atrioventricular block paced VYI and those upgraded to DDD and atrio ventricular block paced initially DDD. Calculations were based on intention to treat.
The 10 year survival with DDD vs YVI pacing was 71% vs 57% in sick sinus syndrome and 61% vs 51%, respectively, in atrioventricular block. In both indications the prevalence of heart failure in the 10 year survivors was 600 lower with DDD pacing. In sick sinus syndrome patients paced VVI, 36% had severe disability while only 8% experienced this with DDD pacing. For atrioventricular block the figures were, respectively, 22% vs 3%. The difference in 10 year cumulative cost between VVI and DDD is 13 times the purchase price of a VVI pulse generator for sick sinus syndrome and 7 times for atrioventricular block. In the third year after implantation the cumulative costs of DDD were lower than for VVI for both indications.
Dual chamber pacing for both indications, sick sinus syn drome and atrioventricular block, is both clinically and cost effective.
Key Words: Cost benefit analysis • atrioventricular block • sick sinus syndrome • dual chamber pacing • VVI pacing • atrial fibrillation • stroke • permanent disability • heart failure • mortality
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. Caro, A. Ward, and J. Moller Modelling the health benefits and economic implications of implanting dual-chamber vs. single-chamber ventricular pacemakers in the UK Europace, June 1, 2006; 8(6): 449 - 455. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Boriani, L. Rusconi, M. Biffi, L. Pavia, M. Sassara, D. Malfitano, M. G. Bongiorni, L. Padeletti, I. Filice, D. Sanfelici, et al. Role of ventricular autocapture function in increasing longevity of DDDR pacemakers: a prospective study. Europace, March 1, 2006; 8(3): 216 - 220. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D B Shaw, J I Gowers, C A Kekwick, K H J New, and A W T Whistance Is Mobitz type I atrioventricular block benign in adults? Heart, February 1, 2004; 90(2): 169 - 174. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J.C. Daubert and C. Leclercq Upgrading from ventricular to physiological pacing: is it worth it? Eur. Heart J., March 2, 2002; 23(6): 437 - 441. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.K.H Wiegand, J Potratz, F Bode, R Schreiber, H Bonnemeier, W Peters, and H.A Katus Cost-effectiveness of dual-chamber pacemaker therapy: does single lead VDD pacing reduce treatment costs of atrioventricular block? Eur. Heart J., January 2, 2001; 22(2): 174 - 180. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Proclemer, P. Della Bella, D. Facchin, L. Fattore, C. Carbucicchio, C. Tondo, M. Lunati, M. R. Vecchi, E. Petz, and M. Zecchin Indications for dual-chamber cardioverter defibrillators at implant and at 1 year follow-up: a retrospective analysis in the single-chamber defibrillator era Europace, January 1, 2001; 3(2): 132 - 135. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Carlsson, S. Miketic, G. Dees, S. Haun, A. Cuneo, and U. Tebbe Stroke prevention practices in patients with atrial fibrillation and pacemaker therapy: Evidence for under-use of anticoagulation Europace, January 1, 2000; 2(2): 115 - 118. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Vassolo and G.A. Lamas Dual-chamber vs ventricular pacing in the elderly: quality of life and clinical outcomes Eur. Heart J., November 2, 1999; 20(22): 1607 - 1608. [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H J MARSHALL, M D GAMMAGE, and M J GRIFFITH AAI pacing for sick sinus syndrome: first choice on all counts Heart, October 1, 1998; 80(4): 315 - 316. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K W Clarke, D T Connelly, and R G Charles Single chamber atrial pacing: an underused and cost-effective pacing modality in sinus node disease Heart, October 1, 1998; 80(4): 387 - 389. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. Ovsyshcher, D. L. Hayes, and S. Furman Dual-Chamber Pacing Is Superior to Ventricular Pacing : Fact or Controversy? Circulation, June 16, 1998; 97(23): 2368 - 2370. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. BRICHTA The New Premier-Parliamentary System in Israel The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, January 1, 1998; 555(1): 180 - 192. [Abstract]
|
|