Temporary Pacing with Active-Fixation Leads: Clinical and Economic Impact Versus Conventional Temporary Transvenous...

Area of Science:

• Cardiology
• Medical Devices
• Health Economics

Background:

• Temporary pacemaker use is rising annually.
• Conventional passive-fixation leads (TPPF) have limitations in effectiveness and safety.
• Active-fixation leads (TPAF) offer a potentially safer alternative.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the clinical and economic impact of active-fixation leads versus passive-fixation leads for temporary pacing.
• To evaluate the safety and efficacy of TPAF compared to TPPF.
• To assess the cost-effectiveness of TPAF in various healthcare systems.

Main Methods:

• Literature search of clinical outcomes for TPPF and TPAF.
• Descriptive comparative analysis of identified studies.
• Extrapolation of results to Spanish, European, and global populations.

Main Results:

• Analysis included five articles from ECTSF and eight from ECTEFA.
• Implementation of TPAF could reduce complications by an estimated 94.7%.
• TPAF is associated with a 55.72% reduction in procedural costs and overall healthcare expenditure.

Conclusions:

• Active-fixation leads (TPAF) demonstrate significant clinical improvement over passive-fixation leads (TPPF).
• Despite higher initial costs, TPAF systems reduce overall temporary pacing costs through decreased hospital stays and complication management.
• TPAF represents a more cost-effective and clinically superior option for temporary pacing.