A Cost-Utility Analysis of the Syncope: Pacing or Recording in The Later Years (SPRITELY) Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: ears (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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".