Cost-effectiveness of dual-chamber pacemaker therapy: does single lead VDD pacing reduce treatment costs of atrioventricular block?

AIMS Implantation of single-lead VDD pacemakers is an established alternative to DDD pacing in patients with atrioventricular block. This study compares the long-term costs of both systems. METHODS AND RESULTS Three hundred and sixty patients with atrioventricular block received VDD or DDD pacemakers in alternating order. Primary costs of implantation included: devices, leads and operation material, surgeons, nurses, medical technicians, and hospitalization. The mean cost of an uncomplicated DDD pacemaker implantation was defined as 1000 virtual cost-units (CU). Costs of pacemaker related complications or re-operations as well as upgrades from VDD to DDD devices were considered secondary costs and assessed during a mean follow-up period of 42+/-15 months. Pacing efficacy was assessed by event-free survival with maintained atrioventricular synchronized pacing mode. Costs of pacemaker devices were not different (639+/-26 CU in VDD vs 641+/-32 CU in DDD, ns). However, due to lower costs of lead hardware (102+/-10 CU in VDD vs 133+/-14 CU in DDD, P<0.001) and shorter implantation procedures (44.3+/-5.1 min vs 74.4+/-13.5 min, P<0.001), costs of an uncomplicated implantation were 8.9% lower in the VDD group (911+/-35 CU vs 1000+/-39 CU, P<0.001). A smaller complication rate in the VDD group led to a 16.1% reduction of secondary costs (26+/-17 CU year(-1)vs 31+/- 25 CU year(-1), P=0.024). Event-free survival did not differ between groups (83.4% in VDD vs 84.9% in DDD, ns). CONCLUSION Use of single-lead VDD pacemakers achieves significant reduction of implantation and follow-up costs without loss of therapeutic efficacy compared to conventional DDD systems.