The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dual-chamber pacemakers compared with single-chamber pacemakers for bradycardia due to atrioventricular block or sick sinus syndrome: systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dual-chamber pacemakers versus single-chamber atrial or single-chamber ventricular pacemakers in the treatment of bradycardia due to sick sinus syndrome (SSS) or atrioventricular block (AVB). DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases and relevant Internet sites. Contact with device manufacturers and experts in the field. REVIEW
METHODS: A systematic review was carried out of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The quality of selected studies was appraised using standard frameworks. Meta-analyses, using random effects models, were carried out where appropriate. Limited exploration of heterogeneity was possible. Critical appraisal of economic evaluations was carried out using two frameworks. A decision-analytic model was developed using a Markov approach, to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dual-chamber versus ventricular or atrial pacing over 5 and 10 years as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Uncertainty was explored using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS: The searches retrieved a systematic review of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness published in 2002, four parallel group RCTs and 28 cross-over trials. Dual-chamber pacing was associated with lower rates of atrial fibrillation, particularly in SSS, than ventricular pacing, and prevents pacemaker syndrome. Higher rates of atrial fibrillation were seen with dual-chamber pacing than with atrial pacing. Complications occurred more frequently in dual-chamber pacemaker insertion. The cost of a dual-chamber system, over 5 years, including cost of complications and subsequent clinical events in the population, was estimated to be around 7400 pounds. The overall cost difference between single and dual systems is not large over this period: around 700 pounds more for dual-chamber devices. The cost-effectiveness of dual-chamber compared with ventricular pacing was estimated to be around 8500 pounds per QALY in AVB and 9500 pounds in SSS over 5 years, and around 5500 pounds per QALY in both populations over 10 years. Under more conservative assumptions, the cost-effectiveness of dual-chamber pacing is around 30,000 pounds per QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that, under the base-case assumptions, dual-chamber pacing is likely to be considered cost-effective at levels of willingness to pay that are generally considered acceptable by policy makers. In contrast, atrial pacing may be cost-effective compared with dual-chamber pacing.
CONCLUSIONS: Dual-chamber pacing results in small but potentially important benefits in populations with SSS and/or AVB compared with ventricular pacemakers. Pacemaker syndrome is a crucial factor in determining cost-effectiveness; however, difficulties in standardising diagnosis and measurement of severity make it difficult to quantify. Dual-chamber pacing is in common usage in the UK. Recipients are more likely to be younger. Insufficient evidence is currently available to inform policy on specific groups who may benefit most from pacing with dual-chamber devices. Further important research is underway. Outstanding research priorities include the economic evaluation of UKPACE studies of the classification, diagnosis and utility associated with pacemaker syndrome and evidence on the effectiveness of pacemakers in children.