ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2025
Cost-Effectiveness of Insertable Cardiac Monitor in Unexplained Syncope-Based on Real-World Data From China.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association Between Left Ventricular Diastolic Dysfunction and Subsequent Detection of Sick Sinus Syndrome and Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Unexplained Syncope.Journal of arrhythmia · 2026Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Insertable Cardiac Monitor in Unexplained Syncope-Based on Real-World Data From China.Journal of arrhythmia · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The use of an insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) is recommended to help diagnose patients with unexplained syncope. Compared with conventional testing (CONV), ICM provides continuous long-term electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring and has the ability to establish symptom-rhythm correlations, which is critical for patients with infrequent and randomized syncope. In China, the upfront cost of ICM is relatively high. However, the subsequent costs and outcomes of additional diagnostics and resulting treatments remain unclear. This study sought to evaluate the economic value of ICM versus CONV in patients with unexplained syncope and suspected of arrhythmia from the perspective of the China's healthcare system, aiming at informing clinical and policy decisions. Methods: This study used a Markov model to assess the lifetime costs and benefits of ICM versus CONV for diagnosing syncope. In this model, the costs and effectiveness of all relevant diagnostic and follow-up arrhythmia-related treatments were considered. The study cohort characteristics and costs were obtained from a retrospective real-world study conducted in Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital. The mortality rate, syncope recurrence rate, syncope-related injury rate, and quality of life estimates were obtained from published literature. Total costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were modeled for two strategies, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. Three times China's GDP per capita in 2023 was used as a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Results: ICM was predicted to be more expensive but more effective than CONV. The base-case results showed that the average cost of the ICM group was 111 733 CNY with QALYs of 10.28, while the average cost of the CONV group was 88 386 CNY with QALYs of 10.08. The ICER was calculated to be 115 596 CNY/QALY. With China's GDP per capita in 2023 being 89 358 CNY, the ICER was < 1.5 times the GDP per capita, and similar results were shown in the scenario analysis. Conclusion: This analysis suggests that ICM is a cost-effective strategy, versus conventional testing, for the diagnosis of unexplained syncope in China, and supports wider uptake of the technology.
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.