Introduction: Cardiovascular diseases are currently major concern in the world and It is expected that Until 2030, 7 out of 10 deaths in world will be related to cardiovascular diseases. Despite the increase in Pasemaker and ICD implants in recent years, the complications of this devices are increasing. One of the most important complications is the pulsating lead infection. The purpose of this study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of percutaneous and surgical method in extracting pacemaker leads with Qaly index.Methods: In this cross-sectional article (descriptive-analytical) using the Markov model, for compare the two methods of percutaneous and surgery for infectious lead. Sampling was census and ( sample size for percutaneous included 57 people) and information about utility was extracted by the SAQ questionnaire. A systematic review was performed to calculate utility of the surgical Cost from the perspective of the service provider. data analysis by SPSS software, and TreeAge software was used for Markov modeland and sensitivity analysis .Results: Changes in quality of life score in both intervention were incremental and significant and intervention is the only effective factor in changes in quality of life score (P <0.05). The ICER was 5470.44$.Conclusion: The results of the study show that utility and cost of surgery are higher than the percutaneous method.Sensitivity analysis shows If the cost of surgery increases more than 806.52$ (discount rate of 0.06), the percutaneous method dominates the surgery method.

Background: Despite significant expansion, indigenous research regarding health system still faces challenges in the field of research application. They include lack of reliable evidence, late arrival of evidence by policymakers or inappropriate language of evidence related to the field of knowledge exchange and translation. The aim of this study is to investigate the status of knowledge translation in research centers of Kerman University of Medical Sciences. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study conducted in 2020 in research centers affiliated with Kerman University of Medical Sciences. Centers entered the study through census and a standard questionnaire of self-assessment regarding knowledge-producing organizations was used. It contained 50 questions in 4 areas of research question, knowledge production, knowledge transfer and promotion of using evidence. After collecting and coding, the data were entered into SPSS 25 software and analyzed using descriptive statistics and non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test. Results: 20 clinical research centers and 6 non-clinical centers participated in this study. Only 3.85 % of the centers scored more than 80 % in total. Regarding the research question, knowledge production, knowledge transfer and promotion of using evidence, the mean standard deviation of scores were 35/85 ± 9/93, 31/50 ± 7/54, 76/65 ± 16/35 and 9/31 ± 3/27, respectively. The best situation was related to knowledge production with 70 % of the score. Findings of the Mann-Whitney U test showed that the mean of all domains in the two groups were not different. Conclusion: This study demonstrated a moderate level of knowledge translation. But, factors such as creating a structure for knowledge translation committee, considering the process of exchange, translation and transfer of knowledge in the process of approving student dissertations and research projects, reviewing research policies and creation of motivational mechanisms to promote the status of researchers can play an important facilitating role in achieving the appropriate level of knowledge exchange and translation.