Alex Diamantopoulos1, Laura M Sawyer1, Gregory Y H Lip2, Klaus K Witte3, Matthew R Reynolds4, Laurent Fauchier5, Vincent Thijs6, Ben Brown7, Maria E Quiroz Angulo8, Hans-Christoph Diener9. 1. Symmetron Limited, Kinetic Centre, Elstree, London, UK. 2. University of Birmingham Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, City Hospital, Birmingham, UK Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg Thrombosis Research Unit, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, Burlington, MA, USA. 3. Leeds Institute for Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. 4. Economics and Quality of Life Research, Harvard Clinical Research Institute, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Service de Cardiologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Trousseau et Faculté de Médecine, Université François Rabelais, Tours, France. 6. Department of Neurology, Austin Health and Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Heidelberg, Australia. 7. Medtronic, Tolochenaz, Switzerland. 8. Medtronic, Mounds View, MN, USA. 9. Department of Neurology and Stroke Center, University Hospital Essen, Germany Hans.Diener@uk-essen.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Documentation of atrial fibrillation is required to initiate oral anticoagulation therapy for recurrent stroke prevention. Atrial fibrillation often goes undetected with traditional electrocardiogram monitoring techniques. We evaluated whether atrial fibrillation detection using continuous long-term monitoring with an insertable cardiac monitor is cost-effective for preventing recurrent stroke in patients with cryptogenic stroke, in comparison to the standard of care. METHODS: A lifetime Markov model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of insertable cardiac monitors from a UK National Health Service perspective using data from the randomized CRYSTAL-AF trial and other published literature. We also conducted scenario analyses (CHADS2 score) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. All costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5%. RESULTS: Monitoring cryptogenic stroke patients with an insertable cardiac monitor was associated with fewer recurrent strokes and increased quality-adjusted life years compared to the standard of care (7.37 vs 7.22). Stroke-related costs were reduced in insertable cardiac monitor patients, but overall costs remained higher than the standard of care (£19,631 vs £17,045). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £17,175 per quality-adjusted life years gained, compared to standard of care in the base-case scenario, which is below established quality-adjusted life years willingness-to-pay thresholds. When warfarin replaced non-vitamin-K oral anticoagulants as the main anticoagulation therapy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £13,296 per quality-adjusted life years gained. CONCLUSION: Insertable cardiac monitors are a cost-effective diagnostic tool for the prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with cryptogenic stroke. The cost-effectiveness results have relevance for the UK and across value-based healthcare systems that assess costs relative to outcomes.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Documentation of atrial fibrillation is required to initiate oral anticoagulation therapy for recurrent stroke prevention. Atrial fibrillation often goes undetected with traditional electrocardiogram monitoring techniques. We evaluated whether atrial fibrillation detection using continuous long-term monitoring with an insertable cardiac monitor is cost-effective for preventing recurrent stroke in patients with cryptogenic stroke, in comparison to the standard of care. METHODS: A lifetime Markov model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of insertable cardiac monitors from a UK National Health Service perspective using data from the randomized CRYSTAL-AF trial and other published literature. We also conducted scenario analyses (CHADS2 score) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. All costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5%. RESULTS: Monitoring cryptogenic stroke patients with an insertable cardiac monitor was associated with fewer recurrent strokes and increased quality-adjusted life years compared to the standard of care (7.37 vs 7.22). Stroke-related costs were reduced in insertable cardiac monitor patients, but overall costs remained higher than the standard of care (£19,631 vs £17,045). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £17,175 per quality-adjusted life years gained, compared to standard of care in the base-case scenario, which is below established quality-adjusted life years willingness-to-pay thresholds. When warfarin replaced non-vitamin-K oral anticoagulants as the main anticoagulation therapy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £13,296 per quality-adjusted life years gained. CONCLUSION: Insertable cardiac monitors are a cost-effective diagnostic tool for the prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with cryptogenic stroke. The cost-effectiveness results have relevance for the UK and across value-based healthcare systems that assess costs relative to outcomes.
Authors: Nicolle S Milstein; Dan L Musat; James Allred; Amber Seiler; Jacqueline Pimienta; Susan Oliveros; Advay G Bhatt; Mark Preminger; Tina Sichrovsky; Richard E Shaw; Suneet Mittal Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2019-10-14 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Karl Georg Haeusler; Klaus Gröschel; Martin Köhrmann; Stefan D Anker; Johannes Brachmann; Michael Böhm; Hans-Christoph Diener; Wolfram Doehner; Matthias Endres; Christian Gerloff; Hagen B Huttner; Manfred Kaps; Paulus Kirchhof; Darius Günther Nabavi; Christian H Nolte; Waltraud Pfeilschifter; Burkert Pieske; Sven Poli; Wolf Rüdiger Schäbitz; Götz Thomalla; Roland Veltkamp; Thorsten Steiner; Ulrich Laufs; Joachim Röther; Rolf Wachter; Renate Schnabel Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2018-04-27 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Dariusz Dudek; Waldemar Banasiak; Wojciech Braksator; Jacek Dubiel; Tomasz Grodzicki; Piotr Hoffman; Mariusz Kuśmierczyk; Grzegorz Opolski; Piotr Ponikowski; Jacek Różański; Jerzy Sadowski; Wojciech Wojakowski; Marcin Grabowski; Katarzyna Bondaryk; Jacek Walczak; Izabela Pieniążek; Maciej Grys; Anna Lesiak-Bednarek; Piotr Przygodzki Journal: Cardiol J Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 2.737
Authors: Flemming J Olsen; Louisa M Christensen; Derk W Krieger; Søren Højberg; Nis Høst; Finn M Karlsen; Jesper H Svendsen; Hanne Christensen; Tor Biering-Sørensen Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-10-08 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Marta Rubiera; Ana Aires; Kateryna Antonenko; Sabrina Lémeret; Christian H Nolte; Jukka Putaala; Renate B Schnabel; Anil M Tuladhar; David J Werring; Dena Zeraatkar; Maurizio Paciaroni Journal: Eur Stroke J Date: 2022-06-03
Authors: Markus Kneihsl; Egbert Bisping; Daniel Scherr; Harald Mangge; Simon Fandler-Höfler; Isabella Colonna; Melanie Haidegger; Sebastian Eppinger; Edith Hofer; Franz Fazekas; Christian Enzinger; Thomas Gattringer Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2021-09-23 Impact factor: 6.288
Authors: Amit K Kishore; Susan Fletcher; Denise Mason; Christopher Ashton; Jane Molloy; Alan Fitchet Journal: Clin Med (Lond) Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 2.659
Authors: Lan Gao; Marj Moodie; Ben Freedman; Christina Lam; Hans Tu; Corey Swift; Sze-Ho Ma; Vincent C T Mok; Yi Sui; David Sharpe; Darshan Ghia; Jim Jannes; Stephen Davis; Xinfeng Liu; Bernard Yan Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2022-04-12 Impact factor: 6.106