Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37537947›Full record

ArticleClinical cardiology2023

Comparative cost analysis of implanting devices in different cardiac resynchronization therapeutic strategies.

Mengna Chen, Jing Shi, Yimin Zhang, Xiaozhen Ge, Xu Zhang, Wenbin Fan, Shuo Wang, Zhiqin Guo, Jian Guan, Yongquan Wu and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical cardiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Cost-effective CRT using dual-chamber generators in patients without atrial pacing need.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mengna ChenThe First Hospital of Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Jing ShiThe First Hospital of Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Yimin ZhangThe First Hospital of Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Xiaozhen GeThe First Hospital of Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Xu ZhangThe First Hospital of Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Wenbin FanThe First Hospital of Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Shuo WangThe First Hospital of Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Zhiqin GuoThe First Hospital of Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Jian GuanThe First Hospital of Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Yongquan WuBeijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9156-4669
Junmeng ZhangThe First Hospital of Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4670-0670
Beijing Hua Xin Hospital · CNCapital Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established treatment option for heart failure patients. However, the implementation of triple-chamber pacemakers can be cost-prohibitive. His-Purkinje system pacing (HPSP) can also enable cardiac resynchronization, and it can be achieved with relatively inexpensive conventional pacemakers. HYPOTHESIS: This article aims to comparatively evaluate the cost of implanting devices in different CRT strategies to provide meaningful guidance for clinical decision-making by electrophysiologists.

methodsData was collected on the prices, designed life, and price/designed life of multiple mainstream models of CRT-P, CRT-D, dual-chamber pacemakers, and single-chamber pacemakers that were sold in the Chinese market in 2022. The prices, designed lives, and price/designed life of different pacemaker models were then compared.

resultsThe costs of CRT-P and CRT-D (13008.44 ± 2752.30 USD and 22043.36 ± 3676.25 USD) were significantly higher than those of conventional pacemakers (dual-chamber: 11142.39 ± 4273.85 USD and single-chamber: 5634.28 ± 2032.80 USD) (p < .05). Additionally, the price/designed life of conventional pacemakers (dual-chamber: 839.63 ± 258.62 US dollar/year and single-chamber: 435.86 ± 125.44 US dollar/year) was significantly better than that of CRT-P and CRT-D (1386.91 ± 266.73 and 2585.53 ± 520.27 US dollar/year, respectively) (p < .05).

conclusionConduction system pacing (CSP)-based CRT is more cost-effective than BVP-based CRT. Furthermore, CSP-based CRT can achieve cardiac resynchronization with conventional pacemakers and may be a good option for HF patients who do not need defibrillation.

Indexed as

Cardiac Resynchronization TherapyHeart FailurePacemaker, ArtificialCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansTreatment Outcomebiventricular pacingcardiac resynchronization therapyconduction system pacingcost analysispacemakers

Identifiers

PMID37537947
PMCPMC10577564
OpenAlexW4385564725

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.