Literature DB >> 27307517

Cost-Effectiveness of Percutaneous Closure of the Left Atrial Appendage in Atrial Fibrillation Based on Results From PROTECT AF Versus PREVAIL.

James V Freeman1, David W Hutton2, Geoffrey D Barnes2, Ruo P Zhu2, Douglas K Owens2, Alan M Garber2, Alan S Go2, Mark A Hlatky2, Paul A Heidenreich2, Paul J Wang2, Amin Al-Ahmad2, Mintu P Turakhia2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials of left atrial appendage (LAA) closure with the Watchman device have shown varying results, and its cost effectiveness compared with anticoagulation has not been evaluated using all available contemporary trial data. METHODS AND
RESULTS: We used a Markov decision model to estimate lifetime quality-adjusted survival, costs, and cost effectiveness of LAA closure with Watchman, compared directly with warfarin and indirectly with dabigatran, using data from the long-term (mean 3.8 year) follow-up of Percutaneous Closure of the Left Atrial Appendage Versus Warfarin Therapy for Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation (PROTECT AF) and Prospective Randomized Evaluation of the Watchman LAA Closure Device in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation (PREVAIL) randomized trials. Using data from PROTECT AF, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios compared with warfarin and dabigatran were $20 486 and $23 422 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively. Using data from PREVAIL, LAA closure was dominated by warfarin and dabigatran, meaning that it was less effective (8.44, 8.54, and 8.59 quality-adjusted life years, respectively) and more costly. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per quality-adjusted life year, LAA closure was cost effective 90% and 9% of the time under PROTECT AF and PREVAIL assumptions, respectively. These results were sensitive to the rates of ischemic stroke and intracranial hemorrhage for LAA closure and medical anticoagulation.
CONCLUSIONS: Using data from the PROTECT AF trial, LAA closure with the Watchman device was cost effective; using PREVAIL trial data, Watchman was more costly and less effective than warfarin and dabigatran. PROTECT AF enrolled more patients and has substantially longer follow-up time, allowing greater statistical certainty with the cost-effectiveness results. However, longer-term trial results and postmarketing surveillance of major adverse events will be vital to determining the value of the Watchman in clinical practice.
© 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  anticoagulants; atrial appendage; atrial fibrillation; intracranial hemorrhage; pericardial effusion

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27307517      PMCID: PMC4911813          DOI: 10.1161/CIRCEP.115.003407

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol        ISSN: 1941-3084


  66 in total

1.  Preference-Based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States.

Authors:  Patrick W Sullivan; Vahram Ghushchyan
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2006 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  National health care costs of peripheral arterial disease in the Medicare population.

Authors:  Alan T Hirsch; Lacey Hartman; Robert J Town; Beth A Virnig
Journal:  Vasc Med       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 3.239

3.  Clinical classification schemes for predicting hemorrhage: results from the National Registry of Atrial Fibrillation (NRAF).

Authors:  Brian F Gage; Yan Yan; Paul E Milligan; Amy D Waterman; Robert Culverhouse; Michael W Rich; Martha J Radford
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 4.749

4.  Oral anticoagulants vs aspirin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: an individual patient meta-analysis.

Authors:  Carl van Walraven; Robert G Hart; Daniel E Singer; Andreas Laupacis; Stuart Connolly; Palle Petersen; Peter J Koudstaal; Yuchiao Chang; Beppie Hellemons
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-11-20       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Oral anticoagulation and hemorrhagic complications in an elderly population with atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  M Copland; I D Walker; R C Tait
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2001-09-24

6.  Decision analysis and guidelines for anticoagulant therapy to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  R Thomson; D Parkin; M Eccles; M Sudlow; A Robinson
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2000-03-18       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Prospective randomized evaluation of the Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure device in patients with atrial fibrillation versus long-term warfarin therapy: the PREVAIL trial.

Authors:  David R Holmes; Saibal Kar; Matthew J Price; Brian Whisenant; Horst Sievert; Shephal K Doshi; Kenneth Huber; Vivek Y Reddy
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2014-07-08       Impact factor: 24.094

8.  Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion for patients in atrial fibrillation suboptimal for warfarin therapy: 5-year results of the PLAATO (Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Transcatheter Occlusion) Study.

Authors:  Peter C Block; Steven Burstein; Paul N Casale; Paul H Kramer; Paul Teirstein; David O Williams; Mark Reisman
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 11.195

9.  Economic evaluation of percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion, dabigatran, and warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  Sheldon M Singh; Andrew Micieli; Harindra C Wijeysundera
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2013-05-22       Impact factor: 29.690

10.  Inpatient costs of specific cerebrovascular events at five academic medical centers.

Authors:  R G Holloway; D M Witter; K B Lawton; J Lipscomb; G Samsa
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 9.910

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device With Delivery System: A Health Technology Assessment.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2017-07-04

Review 2.  In Search of the Optimal Antithrombotic Regimen for Intracerebral Hemorrhage Survivors with Atrial Fibrillation.

Authors:  Teng J Peng; Catherine Viscoli; Pooja Khatri; Stacey Q Wolfe; Nirav R Bhatt; Tarun Girotra; Hooman Kamel; Kevin N Sheth
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2022-06-03       Impact factor: 11.431

3.  Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion in the prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review.

Authors:  Jayson R Baman; Moussa Mansour; E Kevin Heist; David T Huang; Yitschak Biton
Journal:  Heart Fail Rev       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 4.214

4.  Cost-Effectiveness of Left Atrial Appendage Closure for Stroke Reduction in Atrial Fibrillation: Analysis of Pooled, 5-Year, Long-Term Data.

Authors:  Vivek Y Reddy; Ronald L Akehurst; Meghan B Gavaghan; Stacey L Amorosi; David R Holmes
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2019-06-22       Impact factor: 5.501

5.  Clinical outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion in general anaesthesia or conscious sedation: data from the prospective global Amplatzer Amulet Occluder Observational Study.

Authors:  Kerstin Piayda; Katharina Hellhammer; Jens Erik Nielsen-Kudsk; Boris Schmidt; Patrizio Mazzone; Sergio Berti; Sven Fischer; Juha Lund; Matteo Montorfano; Paolo Della Bella; Ryan Gage; Tobias Zeus
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-03-24       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure reduces cost of care independent of the institutional cumulative caseload in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  G D'Ancona; F Arslan; E Safak; D Weber; H Ince
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2022-03-29       Impact factor: 2.854

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.