J Hunter Mehaffey1, Robert B Hawkins1, Matthew Byler1, Judy Smith1, John A Kern1, Irving Kron1, Gorav Ailawadi1, Tanya Wanchek2, Leora T Yarboro3. 1. Division of Thoracic & Cardiovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia. 2. Department of Public Health, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. 3. Division of Thoracic & Cardiovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia. Electronic address: ljt9r@virginia.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) after cardiac operations results in a significant increase in morbidity, mortality, and health care costs. Prophylactic amiodarone has been shown to reduce the incidence of POAF; however, the cost-effectiveness of a protocol-driven approach remains unknown. METHODS: All patients with a Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score enrolled in a prophylactic amiodarone protocol (n = 153) were propensity score matched 1:3 with patients before protocol implementation (n = 3,574). Multivariate logistic and linear regressions assessed the relative risks (POAF reduction and adverse medication effects) in the matched cohort of amiodarone therapy and costs, respectively. TreeAge cost-effectiveness software (TreeAge Software, Inc, Williamstown, MA) modeled the effects of prophylactic amiodarone costs, complication rates, and quality of life. RESULTS: Of patients eligible for the prophylactic amiodarone protocol, 94.3% (281 of 298) were enrolled. Prophylactic amiodarone significantly reduced the rate of POAF (25.7% vs 16.8%, p < 0.0001). A total of 600 matched patients demonstrate no baseline differences in demographics, comorbidities, disease state, or operative factors, with a significant reduction in POAF without an increase in other associated complications. With the use these adjusted estimates, the prophylactic amiodarone protocol demonstrated a cost savings of $458 per patient. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the protocol is cost-effective for all protocol-related POAF risk reductions below an odds ratio of 0.726. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a prophylactic amiodarone protocol significantly reduced risk-adjusted rates of POAF, with a cost savings of $458 per patient. This analysis demonstrates how rigorous quantitative analysis can evaluate the benefits of quality improvement projects.
BACKGROUND:Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) after cardiac operations results in a significant increase in morbidity, mortality, and health care costs. Prophylactic amiodarone has been shown to reduce the incidence of POAF; however, the cost-effectiveness of a protocol-driven approach remains unknown. METHODS: All patients with a Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score enrolled in a prophylactic amiodarone protocol (n = 153) were propensity score matched 1:3 with patients before protocol implementation (n = 3,574). Multivariate logistic and linear regressions assessed the relative risks (POAF reduction and adverse medication effects) in the matched cohort of amiodarone therapy and costs, respectively. TreeAge cost-effectiveness software (TreeAge Software, Inc, Williamstown, MA) modeled the effects of prophylactic amiodarone costs, complication rates, and quality of life. RESULTS: Of patients eligible for the prophylactic amiodarone protocol, 94.3% (281 of 298) were enrolled. Prophylactic amiodarone significantly reduced the rate of POAF (25.7% vs 16.8%, p < 0.0001). A total of 600 matched patients demonstrate no baseline differences in demographics, comorbidities, disease state, or operative factors, with a significant reduction in POAF without an increase in other associated complications. With the use these adjusted estimates, the prophylactic amiodarone protocol demonstrated a cost savings of $458 per patient. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the protocol is cost-effective for all protocol-related POAF risk reductions below an odds ratio of 0.726. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a prophylactic amiodarone protocol significantly reduced risk-adjusted rates of POAF, with a cost savings of $458 per patient. This analysis demonstrates how rigorous quantitative analysis can evaluate the benefits of quality improvement projects.
Authors: G Hossein Almassi; Sharon A Pecsi; Joseph F Collins; A Laurie Shroyer; Marco A Zenati; Frederick L Grover Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2011-11-04 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Carlo Rostagno; Mark La Meir; Sandro Gelsomino; Lorenzo Ghilli; Alessandra Rossi; Enrico Carone; Lucio Braconi; Gabriele Rosso; Francesco Puggelli; Alessio Mattesini; Pier Luigi Stefàno; Luigi Padeletti; Jos Maessen; Gian Franco Gensini Journal: J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth Date: 2010-05-31 Impact factor: 2.628
Authors: Brian J Barnes; Erin A Kirkland; Patricia A Howard; Dennis W Grauer; Michael E Gorton; Jeffrey B Kramer; Gregory F Muehlebach; William A Reed Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Joseph E Ebinger; Brandon R Porten; Craig E Strauss; Ross F Garberich; Christopher Han; Sharon K Wahl; Benjamin C Sun; Raed H Abdelhadi; Timothy D Henry Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2016-08-23
Authors: Lars R Zebis; Thomas D Christensen; Henrik F Thomsen; Martin M Mikkelsen; Lars Folkersen; Henrik T Sørensen; Vibeke E Hjortdal Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Sander Bramer; Albert H M van Straten; Mohamed A Soliman Hamad; Eric Berreklouw; Elisabeth J Martens; Jos G Maessen Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Kyle A Arsenault; Arif M Yusuf; Eugene Crystal; Jeff S Healey; Carlos A Morillo; Girish M Nair; Richard P Whitlock Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2013-01-31