PACING
FOLLOWPACE study: a prospective study on the cost-effectiveness of routine follow-up visits in patients with a pacemaker
Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht Utrecht The Netherlands ; Heart Lung Center Utrecht, Department of Cardiology, St Antonius Hospital PO Box 2500, 3430 EM Nieuwegein The Netherlands
Aims This communication describes the design of the FOLLOWPACE study. The overall aim of FOLLOWPACE is to quantify the cost-effectiveness of routine follow-up visits in patients with a pacemaker (PM). Specific aims are (i) to quantify the incidence of complications and the quality of life 1 year after PM implantation; (ii) to quantify which baseline characteristics measured during implantation are predictors of the occurrence of complications and quality of life after 1 year; (iii) to determine the added predictive value of follow-up measurements to improve the efficiency of follow-up and to demonstrate which follow-up measurements are redundant.
Methods and results FOLLOWPACE is a prospective, observational, prognostic cohort study. About 40 PM centres in the Netherlands will participate to include about 2500 patients. Each patient aged 
18 receiving a PM for the first time is eligible. At baseline, i.e. time of implantation, all potential predictors of complications and quality of life after 1 year are documented. After implantation, follow-up visits will be carried out conforming with routine care, usually three in the first year. At these visits, other potential prognostic predictors will be documented. Primary outcome is the incidence of PM- or cardiac complications at 1 year. Secondary outcome parameters are quality of life and costs after 1 year.
Conclusion This study will lead to definition of a more efficient routine follow-up schedule for patients with a PM, aiming to reduce time and energy while preserving the safety of pacing therapy and the prognosis of the patient. The study will ultimately provide evidence-based guidelines for PM follow-up including knowledge of the responsibilities of cardiologists, technicians, and representatives of PM manufacturers.
Key Words: Pacemaker, Follow-up, Complications, Prognosis, Prediction, Cost-effectiveness
Corresponding author. Tel: +31 30 609 9111; fax: +31 30 603 4420. E-mail address: n.m.vanhemel{at}hetnet.nl
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. W.M. van Eck, N. M. van Hemel, W. G. de Voogt, J. G. Meeder, H. A. Spierenburg, H. Crommentuyn, R. Keijzer, D. E. Grobbee, K. G.M. Moons, and on behalf of the FOLLOWPACE investigators Routine follow-up after pacemaker implantation: frequency, pacemaker programming and professionals in charge Europace, July 1, 2008; 10(7): 832 - 837. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J.W.M. van Eck, N.M. van Hemel, P. Zuithof, J.P.M. van Asseldonk, T.L.H.M. Voskuil, D.E. Grobbee, and K.G.M. Moons Incidence and predictors of in-hospital events after first implantation of pacemakers Europace, October 1, 2007; 9(10): 884 - 889. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|