Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Syncope: Pacing or Recording in the Later Years (SPRITELY) trial reported that a strategy of empiric permanent pacing in patients with syncope and bifascicular block reduces major adverse events more effectively than acting on the results of an implantable cardiac monitor (ICM). Our objective was to determine the cost-effectiveness of using the ICM, compared with a pacemaker (PM), in the management of older adults (age > 50 years) with bifascicular block and syncope enrolled in the SPRITELY trial. METHODS: SPRITELY was a pragmatic, open-label randomized controlled trial with a median follow-up of 33 months. The primary outcome of this analysis is the cost per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Resource utilization and utility data were collected prospectively, and outcomes at 2 years were compared between the 2 arms. A decision analytic model simulated a 3-year time horizon. RESULTS: The mean cost incurred by participants randomized to the PM arm was $9918, compared to $15,416 (both in Canadian dollars) for participants randomized to the ICM arm. The ICM strategy resulted in 0.167 QALYs fewer than the PM strategy. Cost and QALY outcomes are sensitive to the proportion of participants randomized to the ICM arm who subsequently required PM insertion. In 40,000 iterations of probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the PM strategy resulted in cost-savings in 99.7% of iterations, compared with the ICM strategy. CONCLUSIONS: The PM strategy was dominant-that is, less costly and estimated to result in a greater number of QALYs. For patients with unexplained syncope, bifascicular block, and age > 50 years, a PM is more likely to be cost-effective than an ICM.