Circulation · 2005
Cost-effectiveness of dual-chamber pacing compared with ventricular pacing for sinus node dysfunction.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Rinfret Stéphane, Cohen David J, Lamas Gervasio A, Fleischmann Kirsten E, Weinstein Milton C, Orav John, Schron Eleanor, Lee Kerry L, Goldman Lee
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Compared with single-chamber ventricular pacing, dual-chamber pacing can reduce adverse events and, as a result, improve quality of life in patients paced for sick sinus syndrome. It is not clear, however, how these benefits compare with the increased cost of dual-chamber pacemakers.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We used 4-year data from a 2010-patient, randomized trial to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of dual-chamber pacing compared with ventricular pacing and then projected these findings over the patients' lifetimes by using a Markov model that was calibrated to the first 5 years of in-trial data. To assess the stability of the findings, we performed 1000 bootstrap analyses and multiple sensitivity analyses. During the first 4 years of the trial, dual-chamber pacemakers increased quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.013 year per subject at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 53,000 dollars per quality-adjusted year of life gained. Over a lifetime, dual-chamber pacing was projected to increase quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.14 year with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of approximately 6800 dollars per quality-adjusted year of life gained. In bootstrap analyses, dual-chamber pacing was cost-effective in 91.9% of simulations at a threshold of 50,000 dollars per quality-adjusted year of life and in 93.2% of simulations at a threshold of 100,000 dollars. Its cost-effectiveness ratio was also below this threshold in numerous sensitivity analyses that varied key estimates.
CONCLUSIONS: For patients with sick sinus syndrome requiring pacing, dual-chamber pacing increases quality-adjusted life expectancy at a cost that is generally considered acceptable.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We used 4-year data from a 2010-patient, randomized trial to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of dual-chamber pacing compared with ventricular pacing and then projected these findings over the patients' lifetimes by using a Markov model that was calibrated to the first 5 years of in-trial data. To assess the stability of the findings, we performed 1000 bootstrap analyses and multiple sensitivity analyses. During the first 4 years of the trial, dual-chamber pacemakers increased quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.013 year per subject at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 53,000 dollars per quality-adjusted year of life gained. Over a lifetime, dual-chamber pacing was projected to increase quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.14 year with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of approximately 6800 dollars per quality-adjusted year of life gained. In bootstrap analyses, dual-chamber pacing was cost-effective in 91.9% of simulations at a threshold of 50,000 dollars per quality-adjusted year of life and in 93.2% of simulations at a threshold of 100,000 dollars. Its cost-effectiveness ratio was also below this threshold in numerous sensitivity analyses that varied key estimates.
CONCLUSIONS: For patients with sick sinus syndrome requiring pacing, dual-chamber pacing increases quality-adjusted life expectancy at a cost that is generally considered acceptable.