PP34 A Cost-Utility Analysis Of The Syncope: Pacing Or Recording Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: For patients with bifascicular block and syncope of unknown origin, different American Heart Association guidelines give Class 2A recommendations for two treatments: the implantable loop recorder (ILR) and empiric pacemaker insertion (PM). Equipoise reflected in guidelines may contribute to uncertainty in management and inefficient resource use. The objective of this analysis is to determine the cost-effectiveness of ILR compared to PM in the management of older adults (age>50 years) with bifascicular block and syncope over two years, from the perspective of a Canadian publicly funded health care system, in the Syncope: Pacing or Recording In ThE Later Years (SPRITELY) trial. Methods: Resource utilization data was collected throughout the trial, and unit costs were assigned (2017 Canadian dollars). Utility was measured at baseline and annually with the EQ-5D-3L. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated as area-under-the-curve, and adjusted for baseline imbalances in utility. Confidence intervals for the incremental cost effectiveness ratio were generated with non-parametric bootstrapping. Results: Mean cost in participants randomized to PM was CAD 9,759 (USD 7,400), compared to CAD 13,453 (USD 10,200) in participants randomized to ILR. The ILR strategy resulted in 0.020 QALYs more than the PM strategy. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio was CAD 186,553 (95% CI: −831,950–1,191,816) (USD 141,900, 95% CI: −632,740–906,440) per additional QALY. In 1,000 bootstrapped replicates, the cost of the ILR strategy was always greater than that of the PM strategy. At the threshold of CAD 50,000 (USD 38,000) per additional QALY, the probability that the ILR strategy is the cost effective option is 0.504. Conclusions: ILR costs were greater than PM costs, with little difference in QALY outcomes over two-years. Findings are generalizable to patients similar to SPRITELY participants, from the perspective of the Canadian health care system. However, practice pattern variation and payment systems inhibit generalizability to other countries. Future analysis will explore cost and QALY outcomes in countries that participated in the SPRITELY trial.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".