Journal of cardiovascular medicine (Hagerstown, Md.) · 2008
Economic and health consequences of managing bradycardia with dual-chamber compared to single-chamber ventricular pacemakers in Italy.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Deniz Huseyin Baris, Caro J Jaime, Ward Alexandra, Moller Jorgen, Malik Farzana
Аннотация
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.
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.