Dual‑chamber pacemakers for symptomatic bradycardia due to sick sinus syndrome and/or atrioventricular block

Appendix B Sources of evidence considered by the Committee

A. The assessment report for this appraisal was prepared by Peninsula Technology Assessment Group.

Castelnuova E, Stein K, Pitt M et al. The effectiveness and cost effectiveness of dual chamber pacemakers compared to single chamber pacemakers for bradycardia due to atrioventricular block or sick sinus syndrome; systematic review and economic evaluation,May 2004.

B. The following organisations accepted the invitation to participate in this appraisal. They were invited to make submissions and comment on the draft scope and Assessment Report and the Appraisal Consultation Document. Consultee organisations are provided with the opportunity to appeal against the Final Appraisal Determination.

I) Manufacturer/sponsors:

II) Professional/specialist and patient/carer groups:

III) Commentator organisations (without the right of appeal):

C. The following individuals were selected from clinical expert and patient advocate nominations from the professional/specialist and patient/carer groups. They participated in the Appraisal Committee discussions and provided evidence to inform the Appraisal Committee's deliberations. They gave their expert personal view on dual‑chamber pacemakers for symptomatic bradycardia due to sick sinus syndrome and/or atrioventricular block by attending the initial Committee discussion and/or providing written evidence to the Committee. They were also invited to comment on the Appraisal Consultation Document.