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.

Economic evaluation of first-line cryoballoon ablation versus antiarrhythmic drug therapy for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation from an English National Health Service perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Three recent randomised controlled trials have demonstrated that pulmonary vein isolation as an initial rhythm control strategy with cryoablation reduces atrial arrhythmia recurrence in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) compared with antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line cryoablation compared with first-line AADs for treating symptomatic PAF in an English National Health Service (NHS) setting. METHODS: Individual patient-level data from 703 participants with PAF enrolled into Cryo-FIRST (Catheter Cryoablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug as First-Line Therapy of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation), STOP AF First (Cryoballoon Catheter Ablation in an Antiarrhythmic Drug Naive Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation) and EARLY-AF (Early Aggressive Invasive Intervention for Atrial Fibrillation) were used to derive the parameters applied in the cost-effectiveness model (CEM). The CEM comprised a hybrid decision tree and Markov structure. The decision tree had a 1-year time horizon and was used to inform the initial health state allocation in the first cycle of the Markov model (40-year time horizon; 3-month cycle length). Health benefits were expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per year. Model outcomes were generated using probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The results estimated that cryoablation would yield more QALYs (+0.17) and higher costs (+£641) per patient over a lifetime than AADs. This produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £3783 per QALY gained. Independent of initial treatment, individuals were expected to receive ~1.2 ablations over a lifetime. There was a 45% relative reduction in time spent in AF health states for those initially treated with cryoablation. DISCUSSION: AF rhythm control with first-line cryoablation is cost effective compared with first-line AADs in an English NHS setting.

The Cost-Effectiveness of First-Line Cryoablation vs First-Line Antiarrhythmic Drugs in Canadian Patients With Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: The EARLY-AF (NCT02825979), STOP AF First (NCT03118518), and Cryo-FIRST (NCT01803438) randomised controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated that cryoballoon pulmonary vein isolation reduces atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence compared with antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF). The present study developed a cost-effectiveness model (CEM) of first-line cryoablation compared with first-line AADs for PAF, from the Canadian health care payer's perspective. METHODS: Data from the 3 RCTs were analysed to estimate key CEM parameters. The model structure used a decision tree for the first 12 months and a Markov model with a 3-month cycle length for the remaining lifetime time horizon. Costs were set at 2023 Canadian dollars, health benefits were expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and both were discounted 3% annually. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) considered parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: The statistical analysis estimated that first-line cryoablation generates a 47% reduction (P < 0.001) in the rate of AF recurrence, a 73% reduction in the rate of subsequent ablation (P < 0.001), and a 4.3% (P = 0.025) increase in health-related quality of life, compared with first-line AADs. The PSA indicates that an individual treated with first-line cryoablation accrues less costs (-$3,862) and more QALYs (0.19) compared with first-line AADs. Cryoablation is cost-saving in 98.4% of PSA iterations and has a 99.9% probability of being cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained. Cost-effectiveness results were robust to changes in key model parameters. CONCLUSIONS: First-line cryoballoon ablation is cost-effective when compared with AADs for patients with symptomatic PAF.

An economic evaluation of first-line cryoballoon ablation vs antiarrhythmic drug therapy for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation from a U.S. Medicare perspective.

Background: Three recent randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that, as an initial rhythm control strategy, first-line cryoballoon ablation (cryoablation) reduces atrial arrhythmia recurrence compared with antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF). Objective: The study sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line cryoablation compared with first-line AADs for treating symptomatic PAF from a U.S. Medicare payer perspective. Methods: Individual patient-level data from 703 participants with PAF enrolled into the Cryo-FIRST (NCT01803438), STOP AF First (NCT03118518), and EARLY-AF (NCT02825979) trials were used to derive parameters for the cost-effectiveness model. The cost-effectiveness model used a hybrid decision tree and Markov structure. The decision tree had a 1-year time horizon and was used to inform the initial health state allocation in the first cycle of the Markov model. The Markov model used a 40-year time horizon (3-month cycle length). Health benefits were expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per year. Results: Cryoablation was estimated to yield higher QALYs (+0.17) and higher costs (+$4274) per patient over a 40-year time horizon than AADs. Ultimately, this produced an average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $24,637 per QALY gained. Independent of initial treatment, individuals were expected to receive ∼1.2 ablations over a lifetime. There was a 45% relative reduction in time spent in atrial fibrillation health states for those initially treated with cryoablation compared with AADs. Conclusion: Initial rhythm control with first-line cryoballoon ablation is highly cost-effective compared with first-line AADs from a U.S. Medicare payer perspective.

Collection of economic data using UB-04s: Is it worth the effort? Evidence from two clinical trials.

Cost collection using UB-04 forms for economic evaluation is challenging, as UB-04 collection is time and effort intensive and compliance is imperfect. Alternative data sources could overcome those challenges. The objective of this study is to determine the usefulness of UB-04 data in estimating hospital costs compared to clinical case report form (CRF) data. Health care utilization costs were compared from financial information in UB-04s and from an assignment process using CRF data, from the WRAP-IT (23 infections) and the Micra IDE trials (61 adverse events and 108 implants). Charge-based costs were calculated by multiplying charges in UB-04s and hospital-specific Cost-to-Charge ratios from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services cost reports. The cost assignment process used clinical information to find comparable encounters in real world data and assigned an average cost. Paired difference tests evaluated whether both methods yield similar results. The mean difference in total infection related costs between methods in the WRAP-IT trial was $152 +/-$22,565. In the Micra IDE trial, the mean difference in total adverse event related costs between methods was -$355 +/-$8,298 while the mean difference in total implant related costs between methods was $-3,488 +/-$13,859. Wilcoxon tests and generalized linear models could not reject the difference in costs between methods in the first two cases. Cost assignment methods achieve results similar to costs obtained through UB-04s, without the additional investment in time and effort. The use of UB-04 information for services that are not mature in a health care system may present unexpected challenges, necessitating a tradeoff with other methods of cost assignment.

Cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy in the United Kingdom.

AIMS: Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) as destination therapy (DT) are a recommended treatment by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence England for end-stage heart failure patients ineligible for cardiac transplantation. Despite the fact that DT is frequently used as an LVAD indication across other major European countries and the United States, with consistent improvements in quality-of-life and longevity, National Health Service (NHS) England does not currently fund DT, mainly due to concerns over cost-effectiveness. On the basis of the recently published ENDURANCE Supplemental Trial studying DT patients, we assessed for the first time the cost-effectiveness of DT LVADs compared with medical management (MM) in the NHS England. METHODS AND RESULTS: We developed a Markov multiple-state economic model using NHS cost data. LVAD survival and adverse event rates were derived from the ENDURANCE Supplemental Trial. MM survival was based on Seattle Heart Failure Model estimates in the absence of contemporary clinical trials for this population. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated over a lifetime horizon. A discount rate of 3.5% per year was applied to costs and benefits. Deterministic ICER was £46 207 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Costs and utilities were £204 022 and 3.27 QALYs for the LVAD arm vs. £77 790 and 0.54 QALYs for the MM arm. Sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness of the primary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The implantation of the HeartWare™ HVAD™ System in patients ineligible for cardiac transplantation as DT is a cost-effective therapy in the NHS England healthcare system under the end-of-life willingness-to-pay threshold of £50 000/QALY, which applies for VAD patients.

Burden of oral anticoagulation in embolic stroke of undetermined source without atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVE: Prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) is challenging. The advent of safer anticoagulation in the form of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has prompted exploration of prophylactic anticoagulation for all ESUS patients, rather than anticoagulating just those with documented atrial fibrillation (AF). However, recent trials have failed to demonstrate a clinical benefit, while observing increased bleeding. We modeled the economic impact of anticoagulating ESUS patients without documented AF across multiple geographies. METHODS: CRYSTAL-AF trial data were used to assess ischaemic stroke event rates in ESUS patients confirmed AF-free after long-term monitoring. Anticipated bleeding event rates (including both minor and major bleeds) with aspirin, dabigatran 150 mg, and rivaroxaban 20 mg were sourced from published meta-analyses, whilst a 30% ischaemic stroke reduction for both DOACs was assumed. Cost data for clinical events and pharmaceuticals were collected from the local payer perspective. RESULTS: Compared with aspirin, dabigatran and rivaroxaban resulted in 17.9 and 29.9 additional bleeding events per 100 patients over a patient's lifetime, respectively. Despite incorporating into our model the proposed 30% reduction in ischaemic stroke risk, both DOACs were cost-additive over patient lifetime, as the costs of bleeding events and pharmaceuticals outweighed cost savings associated with the reduction in ischaemic strokes. DOACs added £5953-£7018 per patient (UK), €6683-€7368 (Netherlands), €4933-€9378 (Spain), AUD$5353-6539 (Australia) and $26,768-$32,259 (US) of payer cost depending on the agent prescribed. Additionally, in the U.S. patient pharmacy co-payments ranged from $2468-$12,844 depending on agent and patient plan. In all settings, cost-savings could not be demonstrated even when the modelling assumed 100% protection from recurrent ischaemic strokes, due to the very low underlying risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke in this population (1.27 per 100 patient-years). CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulation of non-AF patients may cause excess bleeds and add substantial costs for uncertain benefits, suggesting a personalised approach to anticoagulation in ESUS patients.

Cost-Effectiveness of a Small Intrapericardial Centrifugal Left Ventricular Assist Device.

There is limited data on the cost-effectiveness of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) in the United States particularly for the bridge-to-transplant indication. Our objective is to study the cost-effectiveness of a small intrapericardial centrifugal LVAD compared with medical management (MM) and subsequent heart transplantation using the respective clinical trial data. We developed a Markov economic framework. Clinical inputs for the LVAD arm were based on prospective trials employing the HeartWare centrifugal-flow ventricular assist device system. To better assess survival in the MM arm, and in the absence of contemporary trials randomizing patients to LVAD and MM, estimates from the Seattle Heart Failure Model were used. Costs inputs were calculated based on Medicare claim analyses and when appropriate prior published literature. Time horizon was lifetime. Costs and benefits were appropriately discounted at 3% per year. The deterministic cost-effectiveness analyses resulted in $69,768 per Quality Adjusted Life Year and $56,538 per Life Year for the bridge-to-transplant indication and $102,587 per Quality Adjusted Life Year and $87,327 per Life Year for destination therapy. These outcomes signify a substantial improvement compared with prior studies and re-open the discussion around the cost-effectiveness of LVADs.

Cost-Effectiveness of Thoracotomy Approach for the Implantation of a Centrifugal Left Ventricular Assist Device.

This study reports the first analysis regarding cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation via thoracotomy. Cost-effectiveness of LVADs implanted via the traditional surgical approach of sternotomy has been improved through the years because of technological advances, along with understanding the importance of patient selection and postimplant management have on positively affecting outcomes. Given the positive clinical outcomes of the thoracotomy approach, we seek to study the cost-effectiveness of a centrifugal LVAD via this less invasive approach. We developed a Markov model. Survival and quality of life inputs (QALY) for the LVAD arm were based on data from the LATERAL clinical trial. For the Medical Management arm, survival was derived from the Seattle Heart Failure Model. The heart transplant probability was derived from INTERMACS. Survival after heart transplantation used International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation data. Cost inputs were calculated based on Medicare data and past literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was found to be $64,632 per quality adjusted life year and $57,891 per life year in the bridge to transplant indication. These results demonstrate further improvement in the overall cost-effectiveness of LVAD therapy and confirm implantation of LVADs via a less invasive approach as being cost-effective.

Cost of Thoracotomy Approach: An Analysis of the LATERAL Trial.

BACKGROUND: Less invasive techniques for left ventricular assist device implantation have been increasingly prevalent over past years and have been associated with improved clinical outcomes. The procedural economic impact of these techniques remains unknown. We sought to study and report economic outcomes associated with the thoracotomy implantation approach. METHODS: The LATERAL clinical trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of the thoracotomy approach for implantation of the HeartWare centrifugal-flow ventricular assist device system (HVAD). We collected UB-04 forms in parallel to the trial, allowing analysis of index hospitalization costs. All charges were converted to costs using hospital-specific cost-to-charge ratios and were subsequently compared with Medicare cost data for the same period (2015-2016). Because thoracotomy implants were off-label for all left ventricular assist devices during that period, the Medicare cohort was assumed to consist predominately of traditional sternotomy patients. RESULTS: Thoracotomy patients demonstrated decreased costs compared with sternotomy patients during the index hospitalization. Mean total index hospitalization costs for thoracotomy were $204,107 per patient, corresponding to 21.6% reduction (P < .001) and $56,385 savings per procedure compared with sternotomy. Across almost all cost categories, thoracotomy implants were less costly. CONCLUSIONS: In LATERAL, a clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of the thoracotomy approach for HVAD, costs were lower than those reported in Medicare patient claims occurring over the same period. Because Medicare data can be presumed to consist of predominately sternotomy procedures, thoracotomy appears less expensive than traditional sternotomy.