Observational studyAnnals of medicine2025
Single-chamber pacemakers: with or without leads? Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses.
Observational study in Annals of medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness of leadless versus transvenous single-chamber ventricular pacing: a propensity-weighted real-world study in France.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Era of Synchronized Physiologic Leadless Pacing: A Novel Approach to Cardiac Pacing and Ongoing Development.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Identifying independent risk factors of mortality among patients receiving a leadless pacemaker: A longitudinal retrospective study in a single center.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe 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.
objectiveTo compare the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of conventional and leadless pacemakers. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe 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).
resultsConventional 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.
conclusionsLeadless 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.