Utility and Cost Effectiveness of Temporary Pacing Using Active Fixation Leads and an Externally Placed Reusable Permanent Pacemaker

Abstract

Active-fixation leads and externally placed permanent pacemakers for temporary pacing may be beneficial because they allow for greater patient mobility and comfort and increased reliability of lead placement. The relative cost of this form of pacing may be prohibitive unless markedly prolonged pacing is required. Twenty patients (63 +/- 15 years of age, 15 men) underwent external "temporary permanent" pacing. Pacing duration and associated complications were recorded. Cost models were then constructed using data from the London Health Sciences Center business unit to compare the cost of traditional temporary pacing and this technique using a Medtronic KSR903 pacemaker and 5,076 leads. Direct costs were calculated based on the 2005 Ontario Health Insurance Plan fee schedule, combined with calculation of labor and materials. Pacing was undertaken for a median of 2 days (range 2 to 83). There were no complications during implantation or pacing or after system removal. Sensing was lost in only 1 instance, which was reprogrammed uneventfully. Cost comparison showed that, although active-fixation lead placement was initially more costly ($798.71 vs $471.91), the added reliability of the permanent system allowed ward telemetry instead of cardiac care unit monitoring. This resulted in cost equivalence after only 18 hours and conferred a cost savings of $456 per 24-hour period thereafter. As a result, a savings of $585.20 is projected for a modeled patient after 48 hours of temporary pacing. In conclusion, temporary pacing using this technique is a reliable and comfortable alternative to traditional temporary pacing and appears to be a cost-effective temporary pacing option after 18 hours.