An Economic Evaluation of a Streamlined Day-Case Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Protocol and Conventional Cryoballoon Ablation versus Antiarrhythmic Drugs in a UK Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation Population.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Symptom control for atrial fibrillation can be achieved by catheter ablation or drug therapy. We assessed the cost effectiveness of a novel streamlined atrial fibrillation cryoballoon ablation protocol (AVATAR) compared with optimised antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy and a conventional catheter ablation protocol, from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. METHODS: Data from the AVATAR study were assessed to determine the cost effectiveness of the three protocols in a two-step process. In the first stage, statistical analysis of clinical efficacy outcomes was conducted considering either a three-way comparison (AVATAR vs. conventional ablation vs. optimised AAD therapies) or a two-way comparison (pooled ablation protocol data vs. optimised AAD therapies). In the second stage, models assessed the cost effectiveness of the protocols. Costs and some of the clinical inputs in the models were derived from within-trial cost analysis and published literature. The remaining inputs were derived from clinical experts. RESULTS: No significant differences between the ablation protocols were found for any of the clinical outcomes used in the model. Results of a within-trial cost analysis show that AVATAR is cost-saving (£1279 per patient) compared with the conventional ablation protocol. When compared with optimised AAD therapies, AVATAR (pooled conventional and AVATAR ablation protocols efficacy) was found to be more costly while offering improved clinical benefits. Over a lifetime time horizon, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of AVATAR was estimated as £21,046 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (95% credible interval £7086-£71,718). CONCLUSIONS: The AVATAR streamlined protocol is likely to be a cost-effective option versus both conventional ablation and optimised AAD therapy in the UK NHS healthcare setting.

Alpha 2 agonists for sedation to produce better outcomes from critical illness (A2B Trial): protocol for a multicentre phase 3 pragmatic clinical and cost-effectiveness randomised trial in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Almost all patients receiving mechanical ventilation (MV) in intensive care units (ICUs) require analgesia and sedation. The most widely used sedative drug is propofol, but there is uncertainty whether alpha2-agonists are superior. The alpha 2 agonists for sedation to produce better outcomes from critical illness (A2B) trial aims to determine whether clonidine or dexmedetomidine (or both) are clinically and cost-effective in MV ICU patients compared with usual care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Adult ICU patients within 48 hours of starting MV, expected to require at least 24 hours further MV, are randomised in an open-label three arm trial to receive propofol (usual care) or clonidine or dexmedetomidine as primary sedative, plus analgesia according to local practice. Exclusions include patients with primary brain injury; postcardiac arrest; other neurological conditions; or bradycardia. Unless clinically contraindicated, sedation is titrated using weight-based dosing guidance to achieve a Richmond-Agitation-Sedation score of -2 or greater as early as considered safe by clinicians. The primary outcome is time to successful extubation. Secondary ICU outcomes include delirium and coma incidence/duration, sedation quality, predefined adverse events, mortality and ICU length of stay. Post-ICU outcomes include mortality, anxiety and depression, post-traumatic stress, cognitive function and health-related quality of life at 6-month follow-up. A process evaluation and health economic evaluation are embedded in the trial.The analytic framework uses a hierarchical approach to maximise efficiency and control type I error. Stage 1 tests whether each alpha2-agonist is superior to propofol. If either/both interventions are superior, stages 2 and 3 testing explores which alpha2-agonist is more effective. To detect a mean difference of 2 days in MV duration, we aim to recruit 1437 patients (479 per group) in 40-50 UK ICUs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Scotland A REC approved the trial (18/SS/0085). We use a surrogate decision-maker or deferred consent model consistent with UK law. Dissemination will be via publications, presentations and updated guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03653832.

Safety and Feasibility Assessment of Repetitive Vascular Occlusion Stimulus (RVOS) Application to Multi-Organ Failure Critically Ill Patients: A Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial.

Muscle wasting is implicated in the pathogenesis of intensive care unit acquired weakness (ICU-AW), affecting 40% of patients and causing long-term physical disability. A repetitive vascular occlusion stimulus (RVOS) limits muscle atrophy in healthy and orthopaedic subjects, thus, we explored its application to ICU patients. Adult multi-organ failure patients received standard care +/- twice daily RVOS {4 cycles of 5 min tourniquet inflation to 50 mmHg supra-systolic blood pressure, and 5 min complete deflation} for 10 days. Serious adverse events (SAEs), tolerability, feasibility, acceptability, and exploratory outcomes of the rectus femoris cross-sectional area (RFCSA), echogenicity, clinical outcomes, and blood biomarkers were assessed. Only 12 of the intended 32 participants were recruited. RVOS sessions (76.1%) were delivered to five participants and two could not tolerate it. No SAEs occurred; 75% of participants and 82% of clinical staff strongly agreed or agreed that RVOS is an acceptable treatment. RFCSA fell significantly and echogenicity increased in controls (n = 5) and intervention subjects (n = 4). The intervention group was associated with less frequent acute kidney injury (AKI), a greater decrease in the total sequential organ failure assessment score (SOFA) score, and increased insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), and reduced syndecan-1, interleukin-4 (IL-4) and Tumor necrosis factor receptor type II (TNF-RII) levels. RVOS application appears safe and acceptable, but protocol modifications are required to improve tolerability and recruitment. There were signals of possible clinical benefit relating to RVOS application.

Infections associated with cardiac electronic implantable devices: economic perspectives and impact of the TYRX™ antibacterial envelope.

The occurrence of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) infections and related adverse outcomes have an important financial impact on the healthcare system, with hospitalization length of stay (2-3 weeks on average) being the largest cost driver, including the cost of device system extraction and device replacement accounting for more than half of total costs. In the recent literature, the economic profile of the TYRX™ absorbable antibacterial envelope was analysed taking into account both randomized and non-randomized trial data. Economic analysis found that the envelope is associated with cost-effectiveness ratios below USA and European benchmarks in selected patients at increased risk of infection. Therefore, the TYRX™ envelope, by effectively reducing CIED infections, provides value according to the criteria of affordability currently adopted by USA and European healthcare systems.

Infections and associated costs following cardiovascular implantable electronic device implantations: a nationwide cohort study.

Aims: This study assessed the contemporary occurrence of cardiac device infections (CDIs) following implantation in French hospitals and estimated associated costs. Methods and Results: A retrospective analysis was conducted on the French National Hospital Database (PMSI). Patients with a record of de novo cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation or replacement interventions in France in 2012 were identified and followed until the end of 2015. Cardiac device infections (CDIs) were identified based on coding using the French classification for procedures [Classification Commune des Actes Médicaux (CCAM)] and International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10). Associated costs were estimated based on direct costs from the perspective of the French social security system. In total 78 267 CIED patients (72% de novo implants) were identified (15% defibrillators; 84% pacemakers). The 36-month infection rate associated with de novo defibrillator-only implants, as well as for cardiac resynchronisation therapy - defibrillators (CRT-Ds) was 1.6%. The CDI risk was 2.9% and 3.9% for replacement ICDs and CRT-Ds. Infection rates were lower for de novo single-chamber pacemaker (SCP)/dual-chamber pacemaker (DCP) (0.5%) and cardiac resynchronisation therapy - pacemaker (CRT-P) implants (1.0%), while for replacement procedures the risk increased to 1.4% (SCP/DCP) and 1.3% (CRT-P). Mean infection-related costs over 24 months were €20 623 and €23 234 for CDIs associated with replacement and de novo procedures, and overall costs were not significantly different between pacemaker and defibrillator patients. Conclusion: Cardiac device infections in France are associated with substantial costs, when considering inpatient hospitalizations. Strategies to minimize the rate of CIED infection should be a priority for health care providers and payers.

Cost-effectiveness of TYRX absorbable antibacterial envelope for prevention of cardiovascular implantable electronic device infection.

AIMS: Infection is a major complication of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) therapy that usually requires device extraction and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The TYRX Antibacterial Envelope is a polypropylene mesh that stabilizes the CIED and elutes minocycline and rifampin to reduce the risk of post-operative infection. METHODS: A decision tree was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of TYRX vs standard of care (SOC) following implantation of four CIED device types. The model was parameterized for a UK National Health Service perspective. Probabilities were derived from the literature. Resource use included drug acquisition and administration, hospitalization, adverse events, device extraction, and replacement. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated from costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: Over a 12-month time horizon, TYRX was less costly and more effective than SOC when utilized in patients with an ICD or CRT-D. TYRX was associated with ICERs of £46,548 and £21,768 per QALY gained in patients with an IPG or CRT-P, respectively. TYRX was cost-effective at a £30,000 threshold at baseline probabilities of infection exceeding 1.65% (CRT-D), 1.95% (CRT-P), 1.87% (IPG), and 1.38% (ICD). LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: Device-specific infection rates for high-risk patients were not available in the literature and not used in this analysis, potentially under-estimating the impact of TYRX in certain devices. Nevertheless, TYRX is associated with a reduction in post-operative infection risk relative to SOC, resulting in reduced healthcare resource utilization at an initial cost. The ICERs are below the accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds used by UK decision-makers. TYRX, therefore, represents a cost-effective prevention option for CIED patients at high-risk of post-operative infection.

The Impact of Cryoballoon Versus Radiofrequency Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation on Healthcare Utilization and Costs: An Economic Analysis From the FIRE AND ICE Trial.

BACKGROUND: This study sought to assess payer costs following cryoballoon or radiofrequency current (RFC) catheter ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in the randomized FIRE AND ICE trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: A trial period analysis of healthcare costs evaluated the impact of ablation modality (cryoballoon versus RFC) on differences in resource use and associated payer costs. Analyses were based on repeat interventions, rehospitalizations, and cardioversions during the trial, with unit costs based on 3 national healthcare systems (Germany [€], the United Kingdom [£], and the United States [$]). Total payer costs were calculated by applying standard unit costs to hospital stays, using International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision diagnoses and procedure codes that were mapped to country-specific diagnosis-related groups. Patients (N=750) randomized 1:1 to cryoballoon (n=374) or RFC (n=376) ablation were followed for a mean of 1.5 years. Resource use was lower in the cryoballoon than the RFC group (205 hospitalizations and/or interventions in 122 patients versus 268 events in 154 patients). The cost differences per patient in mean total payer costs during follow-up were €640, £364, and $925 in favor of cryoballoon ablation (P=0.012, 0.013, and 0.016, respectively). This resulted in trial period total cost savings of €245 000, £140 000, and $355 000. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with RFC ablation, cryoballoon ablation was associated with a reduction in resource use and payer costs. In all 3 national healthcare systems analyzed, this reduction resulted in substantial trial period cost savings, primarily attributable to fewer repeat ablations and a reduction in cardiovascular rehospitalizations with cryoballoon ablation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT01490814.