Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=26293406
&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 245.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 245.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 245.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 245.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 245.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 245.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 278.79999999999995 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 278.79999999999995 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 278.79999999999995 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 278.79999999999995 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Warning: imagejpeg(C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\phplern\26293406
.jpg): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 117 Health+Technol+Assess
2015 ; 19
(65
): 1-210
Nephropedia Template TP
gab.com Text
Twit Text FOAVip
Twit Text #
English Wikipedia
Dual-chamber pacemakers for treating symptomatic bradycardia due to sick sinus
syndrome without atrioventricular block: a systematic review and economic
evaluation
#MMPMID26293406
Edwards SJ
; Karner C
; Trevor N
; Wakefield V
; Salih F
Health Technol Assess
2015[Aug]; 19
(65
): 1-210
PMID26293406
show ga
BACKGROUND: Bradycardia [resting heart rate below 60?beats per minute (b.p.m.)]
can be caused by conditions affecting the natural pacemakers of the heart, such
as sick sinus syndrome (SSS) and atrioventricular (AV) blocks. People suffering
from bradycardia may present with palpitations, exercise intolerance and
fainting. The only effective treatment for patients suffering from symptomatic
bradycardia is implantation of a permanent pacemaker. OBJECTIVE: To appraise the
clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dual-chamber pacemakers compared
with single-chamber atrial pacemakers for treating symptomatic bradycardia in
people with SSS and no evidence of AV block. DATA SOURCES: All databases
(MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health
Technology Assessment database, NHS Economic Evaluations Database) were searched
from inception to June 2014. METHODS: A systematic review of the clinical and
economic literature was carried out in accordance with the general principles
published by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Randomised controlled
trials (RCTs) evaluating dual-chamber and single-chamber atrial pacemakers and
economic evaluations were included. Pairwise meta-analysis was carried out. A de
novo economic model was developed. RESULTS: Of 493 references, six RCTs were
included in the review. The results were predominantly influenced by the largest
trial DANPACE. Dual-chamber pacing was associated with a statistically
significant reduction in reoperation [odds ratio (OR) 0.48, 95% confidence
interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.63] compared with single-chamber atrial pacing. The
difference is primarily because of the development of AV block requiring upgrade
to a dual-chamber device. The risk of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation was also
reduced with dual-chamber pacing compared with single-chamber atrial pacing (OR
0.75, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.96). No statistically significant difference was found
between the pacing modes for mortality, heart failure, stroke, chronic atrial
fibrillation or quality of life. However, the risk of developing heart failure
may vary with age and device. The de novo economic model shows that dual-chamber
pacemakers are more expensive and more effective than single-chamber atrial
devices, resulting in a base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of
£6506. The ICER remains below £20,000 in probabilistic sensitivity analysis,
structural sensitivity analysis and most scenario analyses and one-way
sensitivity analyses. The risk of heart failure may have an impact on the
decision to use dual-chamber or single-chamber atrial pacemakers. Results from an
analysis based on age (>?75 years or ??75 years) and risk of heart failure
indicate that dual-chamber pacemakers dominate single-chamber atrial pacemakers
(i.e. are less expensive and more effective) in older patients, whereas
dual-chamber pacemakers are dominated by (i.e. more expensive and less effective)
single-chamber atrial pacemakers in younger patients. However, these results are
based on a subgroup analysis and should be treated with caution. CONCLUSIONS: In
patients with SSS without evidence of impaired AV conduction, dual-chamber
pacemakers appear to be cost-effective compared with single-chamber atrial
pacemakers. The risk of developing a complete AV block and the lack of tools to
identify patients at high risk of developing the condition argue for the
implantation of a dual-chamber pacemaker programmed to minimise unnecessary
ventricular pacing. However, considerations have to be made around the risk of
developing heart failure, which may depend on age and device. STUDY REGISTRATION:
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006708. FUNDING: The National
Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.