Work

Single-chamber pacemakers: with or without leads? Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses

Year: 2025

Type: article

Abstract: INTRODUCTION: The evolution in pacemaker technologies has led to improvements in size, weight, functionality, and durability, even as the battery and electrode-based structural configuration has remained essentially the same. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of conventional and leadless pacemakers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study of 403 patients randomly implanted with a conventional or leadless pacemaker (1 June 2015-31 January 2020) in the Hospital-University Complex of Santiago de Compostela (Galicia, NW Spain). RESULTS: Conventional and leadless pacemakers were implanted in 244 and 159 patients, respectively. Leadless pacemakers were superior to the conventional pacemakers in terms of both cost-effectiveness and cost-utility, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 6,263.38 euros per gained life year and of 5,210.71 euros per quality-adjusted life year, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Leadless pacemakers have fewer complications than conventional pacemakers and, although the device itself is more expensive, the leadless pacemaker is more cost-effective in around 90% of cases.

Source: Annals of Medicine

DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2025.2512108