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 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 .
In patients with SSS without evidence of impaired AV conduction , dual-chamber pacemakers appear to be cost-effective compared with single-chamber atrial pacemakers .
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 .
Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices--Modeling Studies.
OBJECTIVES Mathematical modeling is used widely in economic evaluations of pharmaceuticals and other health-care technologies . Users of models in government and the private sector need to be able to evaluate the quality of models according to scientific criteria of good practice . This report describes the consensus of a task force convened to provide modelers with guidelines for conducting and reporting modeling studies . METHODS The task force was appointed with the advice and consent of the Board of Directors of ISPOR . Members were experienced developers or users of models , worked in academia and industry , and came from several countries in North America and Europe . The task force met on three occasions , conducted frequent correspondence and exchanges of drafts by electronic mail , and solicited comments on three drafts from a core group of external review ers and more broadly from the membership of ISPOR . RESULTS Criteria for assessing the quality of models fell into three areas : model structure , data used as inputs to models , and model validation . Several major themes cut across these areas . Models and their results should be represented as aids to decision making , not as statements of scientific fact ; therefore , it is inappropriate to dem and that models be vali date d prospect ively before use . However , model assumptions regarding causal structure and parameter estimates should be continually assessed against data , and models should be revised accordingly . Structural assumptions and parameter estimates should be reported clearly and explicitly , and opportunities for users to appreciate the conditional relationship between inputs and outputs should be provided through sensitivity analyses . CONCLUSIONS Model-based evaluations are a valuable re source for health-care decision makers . It is the responsibility of model developers to conduct modeling studies according to the best practicable st and ards of quality and to communicate results with adequate disclosure of assumptions and with the caveat that conclusions are conditional upon the assumptions and data on which the model is built
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 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 .
In patients with SSS without evidence of impaired AV conduction , dual-chamber pacemakers appear to be cost-effective compared with single-chamber atrial pacemakers .
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 .