Cost-Effectiveness of Dual-Chamber Pacing Compared With Ventricular Pacing for Sinus Node Dysfunction

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 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 ≈$6800 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 per quality-adjusted year of life and in 93.2% of simulations at a threshold of $100 000. 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.