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

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation is a common cardiac arrhythmia, and 15% to 20% of those who have experienced stroke have atrial fibrillation. Treatment options to prevent stroke in people with atrial fibrillation include pharmacological agents such as novel oral anticoagulants or nonpharmacological devices such as the left atrial appendage closure device with delivery system (LAAC device). The objectives of this health technology assessment were to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the LAAC device versus novel oral anticoagulants in patients without contraindications to oral anticoagulants and versus antiplatelet agents in patients with contraindications to oral anticoagulants.
METHODS: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We also conducted an economic literature review, economic evaluation, and budget impact analysis to assess the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the LAAC device compared with novel oral anticoagulants and oral antiplatelet agents (e.g., aspirin). We also spoke with patients to better understand their preferences, perspectives, and values.
RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled studies met the inclusion criteria for indirect comparison. Five studies assessed the effectiveness of novel oral anticoagulants versus warfarin, and two studies compared the LAAC device with warfarin. No studies were identified that compared the LAAC device with aspirin in patients in whom oral anticoagulants were contraindicated. Using the random effects model, we found that the LAAC device was comparable to novel oral anticoagulants in reducing stroke (odds ratio [OR] 0.85; credible interval [Cr.I] 0.63-1.05). Similarly, the reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality was comparable between the LAAC device and novel oral anticoagulants (OR 0.71; Cr.I 0.49-1.22). The LAAC device was found to be superior to novel oral anticoagulants in preventing hemorrhagic stroke (OR 0.45; Cr.I 0.29-0.79), whereas novel oral anticoagulants were found to be superior to the LAAC device in preventing ischemic stroke (OR 0.67; Cr.I 0.24-1.64). The body of clinical evidence was found to be of moderate quality as assed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. Results from the economic evaluation indicate that the LAAC device is cost-effective compared with aspirin in patients with contraindications to oral anticoagulants. In patients without contraindications to oral anticoagulants, we found that the LAAC device is not cost-effective compared with novel oral anticoagulants. Publicly funding the LAAC device in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with contraindications to oral anticoagulants could result in additional funding of $1.1 million to $7.7 million over the first five years. Patients interviewed reported on the impact of living with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and were supportive of the LAAC device as a treatment option.
CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-quality evidence suggests that the LAAC device is as effective as novel oral anticoagulants in preventing stroke in people with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. However, our results indicate that the LAAC device is cost-effective only in patients with contraindications to oral anticoagulants. People with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with whom we spoke reported positive support for the LAAC device.