A cost-effectiveness analysis of remote monitoring after pacemaker implantation for bradycardia in Japan.

BACKGROUND

Although remote monitoring (RM) after pacemaker implantation is common, its cost-effectiveness has not been fully investigated. Therefore, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of RM compared with conventional follow-up (CFU) in Japanese patients with pacemakers.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to analyze costs and quality-adjusted life years after pacemaker implantation. The target population was Japanese patients implanted with a dual-chamber pacemaker for bradycardia. Transition probabilities (e.g. atrial fibrillation, stroke, and device trouble) were obtained from literature and expert sources. Additionally, stroke risk was determined according to anticoagulation and CHADS2 scores. We used a 10-year horizon with sensitivity analyses for significant variables.

RESULTS

Compared to CFU, RM was more effective; however, it was also more expensive. When the range of the Japanese willingness-to-pay threshold was considered to be ¥5,000,000, RM was at least cost-neutral relative to the CFU in all elderly patients with pacemakers for bradycardia. The cost-effectiveness of RM relative to CFU could be higher for patients with high CHADS2 scores, especially in patients with a CHADS2 score ≥ 3. Scenario analyses changing the interval between visits to an in-office evaluation in the CFU also demonstrated the same conclusions. In particular, when the interval between office visits was 1 year for the CFU, the RM could be more cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that RM can be a cost-effective option for Japanese patients, especially those with high CHADS2 scores and long-term intervals between office visits.