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
Citations Over TimeTop 14% of 2005 papers
Abstract
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.
Related Papers
- → Differences Between Atrial Single Chamber Pacing (AAI) and Ventricular Single Chamber Pacing (VVI) with Respect to Prognosis and Antiarrhythmic Effect in Patients with Sick Sinus Syndrome(1990)109 cited
- → Cost benefit analysis of single and dual chamber pacing for sick sinus syndrome and atrioventricular block: An economic sensitivity analysis of the literature(1996)57 cited
- → Single-Chamber Atrial Pacing Safe in Patients with Sick Sinus Syndrome.(1998)
- Investigation on diagnostic value of dynamic electrocardiogram for sick sinus syndrome(2013)
- → NATIONWIDE TRENDS OF PREFERRED PACEMAKER IMPLANTATION IN PATIENTS WITH SICK SINUS SYNDROME: A COST-EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS OF SINGLE CHAMBER ATRIAL PACEMAKER VERSUS DUAL CHAMBER PACEMAKER(2020)