Single-Chamber and Dual-Chamber Cardiac Pacemakers

A Formal Cost Comparison

  1. KlM A. EAGLE, M.D.;
  2. ALBERT G. MULLEY, M.D.;
  3. DANIEL E. SINGER, M.D.;
  4. DAVID SCHOENFELD, Ph.D.;
  5. J. WARREN HARTHORNE, M.D.; and
  6. GEORGE E. THIBAULT, M.D.
  1. Boston, Massachusetts

    Abstract

    Dual-chamber pacemakers, more sophisticated and costly than single-chamber pacemakers, are being used with increasing frequency, often with unclear indications. Proponents of dual-chamber devices have focused on initial differences in cost without considering additional induced costs. We examined the incremental cost of dual versus single-chamber pacemakers over the expected lifetime of a pacemaker recipient. In addition to initial costs, we included the costs of pacemaker malfunction, reimplantation, generator replacement, and follow-up. Expected differences in cumulative costs per patient were calculated over a 12-year period. Dual-chamber pacing is $2500 more costly at implantation. The difference in cumulative cost increases to $5100 by year 12, reflecting shorter functional life for dual-chamber pacemaker generators and increased cost of follow-up. The incremental cost of dual-chamber pacemaking is neither short-term nor trivial. Dual-chamber pacemakers should be reserved for those who clearly benefit from its advanced technology.

    Article and Author Information

    • ▸From the Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Harvard Medical School; Boston, Massachusetts.

    • Grant support: Dr. Eagle is a Cardiology Fellow funded by National Institutes of Health Training Grant #5 T32HL07208-10. Drs. Mulley and Singer are Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation Scholars in General Internal Medicine.

    • ▸Requests for reprints should be addressed to Kim A. Eagle, M.D.; Medical Practices Evaluation Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, 32 Fruit Street; Boston, MA 02114.

    « Previous | Next Article »Table of Contents