Forecasting the Economic Burden of Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke in the United States Through 2050: A Presidential Advisory From the American Heart Association.

BACKGROUND: Quantifying the economic burden of cardiovascular disease and stroke over the coming decades may inform policy, health system, and community-level interventions for prevention and treatment. METHODS: We used nationally representative health, economic, and demographic data to project health care costs attributable to key cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia) and conditions (coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, atrial fibrillation) through 2050. The human capital approach was used to estimate productivity losses from morbidity and premature mortality due to cardiovascular conditions. RESULTS: One in 3 US adults received care for a cardiovascular risk factor or condition in 2020. Annual inflation-adjusted (2022 US dollars) health care costs of cardiovascular risk factors are projected to triple between 2020 and 2050, from $400 billion to $1344 billion. For cardiovascular conditions, annual health care costs are projected to almost quadruple, from $393 billion to $1490 billion, and productivity losses are projected to increase by 54%, from $234 billion to $361 billion. Stroke is projected to account for the largest absolute increase in costs. Large relative increases among the Asian American population (497%) and Hispanic American population (489%) reflect the projected increases in the size of these populations. CONCLUSIONS: The economic burden of cardiovascular risk factors and overt cardiovascular disease in the United States is projected to increase substantially in the coming decades. Development and deployment of cost-effective programs and policies to promote cardiovascular health are urgently needed to rein in costs and to equitably enhance population health.

Cost-Effectiveness of Vericiguat in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: The VICTORIA Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The VICTORIA trial (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction) demonstrated that, in patients with high-risk heart failure, vericiguat reduced the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization relative to placebo. The hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.84-1.07). In a prespecified analysis, treatment effects varied substantially as a function of baseline NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) levels, with survival benefit for vericiguat in the lower NT-proBNP quartiles (hazard ratio, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.69-0.97]) and no benefit in the highest NT-proBNP quartile (hazard ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.95-1.38]). An economic analysis was a major secondary objective of the VICTORIA research program. METHODS: Medical resource use data were collected for all VICTORIA patients (N=5050). Costs were estimated by applying externally derived US cost weights to resource use counts. Life expectancy was projected from patient-level empirical trial survival results with the use of age-based survival modeling methods. Quality-of-life adjustments were based on prospectively collected EQ-5D-based utilities. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, comparing vericiguat with placebo, assessed from the US health care sector perspective over a lifetime horizon. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using the total VICTORIA cohort, both with and without interaction between treatment and baseline NT-proBNP. RESULTS: Life expectancy modeling results varied according to whether the observed heterogeneity of treatment effect by baseline NT-proBNP values was incorporated into the modeling. Including the interaction term, the vericiguat arm had an estimated quality-adjusted life expectancy of 4.56 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with 4.13 QALYs for placebo (incremental discounted QALY, 0.43). Without the treatment heterogeneity/interaction term, vericiguat had 4.50 QALYs compared with 4.33 QALYs for placebo (incremental discounted QALY, 0.17). Incremental discounted costs (vericiguat minus placebo) were $28 546 with the treatment interaction and $20 948 without it. Corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $66 509 per QALY allowing for treatment heterogeneity and $124 512 without heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Vericiguat use in the VICTORIA trial met criteria for intermediate value, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates were sensitive to whether the analysis accounted for observed NT-proBNP treatment effect heterogeneity. The cost-effectiveness of vericiguat was driven by the projected incremental life expectancy among patients in the lowest 3 quartiles of NT-proBNP. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02861534.

Clinical and cost implications of deferred testing in low-risk patients with stable chest pain: a simulation using the PROMISE trial.

Current guidelines recommend a deferred testing approach in low-risk patients presenting with stable chest pain. After simulating a deferred testing approach using the PROMISE Minimal Risk Score to identify 915 minimal risk participants with cost data from the PROMISE trial, a deferred testing strategy was associated with an adjusted cost savings of -$748.74 (95% CI: -1646.97, 158.06) per participant and 74.6% of samples had better clinical outcomes and lower mean cost. This supports the current guideline recommended deferred testing approach in low-risk patients with stable chest pain.

Initial Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair vs Medical Therapy for Acute Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection.

Importance: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has increasingly been used for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (uTBAD) despite limited supporting data. Objective: To assess whether initial TEVAR following uTBAD is associated with reduced mortality or morbidity compared with medical therapy alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services inpatient claims data for adults aged 65 years or older with index admissions for acute uTBAD from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2018, with follow-up available through December 31, 2019. Exposures: Initial TEVAR was defined as TEVAR within 30 days of admission for acute uTBAD. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular hospitalizations, aorta-related and repeated aorta-related hospitalizations, and aortic interventions associated with initial TEVAR vs medical therapy. Propensity score inverse probability weighting was used. Results: Of 7105 patients with eligible index admissions for acute uTBAD, 1140 (16.0%) underwent initial TEVAR (623 [54.6%] female; median age, 74 years [IQR, 68-80 years]) and 5965 (84.0%) did not undergo TEVAR (3344 [56.1%] female; median age, 76 years [IQR, 69-83 years]). Receipt of TEVAR was associated with region (vs South; Midwest: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.66 [95% CI, 0.53-0.81]; P < .001; Northeast: aOR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.50-0.79]; P < .001), Medicaid dual eligibility (aOR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.91; P = .003), hypertension (aOR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.03-1.54; P = .03), peripheral vascular disease (aOR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.02-1.49; P = .03), and year of admission (2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 were associated with greater odds of TEVAR compared with 2011). After inverse probability weighting, mortality was similar for the 2 strategies up to 5 years (hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.85-1.06), as were aorta-related hospitalizations (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.99-1.27), aortic interventions (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.84-1.20), and cardiovascular hospitalizations (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.93-1.20). In a sensitivity analysis that included deaths within the first 30 days, initial TEVAR was associated with lower mortality over a period of 1 year (adjusted HR [aHR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.99; P = .03), 2 years (aHR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96; P = .008), and 5 years (aHR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96; P = .004). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, 16.0% of patients underwent initial TEVAR within 30 days of uTBAD, and receipt of initial TEVAR was associated with hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, region, Medicaid dual eligibility, and year of admission. Initial TEVAR was not associated with improved mortality or reduced hospitalizations or aortic interventions over a period of 5 years, but in a sensitivity analysis that included deaths within the first 30 days, initial TEVAR was associated with lower mortality. These findings, along with cost-effectiveness and quality of life, should be assessed in a prospective trial in the US population.

Cost-Effectiveness of Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation: The CABANA Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation), catheter ablation did not significantly reduce the primary end point of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest compared with drug therapy by intention-to-treat, but did improve the quality of life and freedom from atrial fibrillation recurrence. In the heart failure subgroup, ablation improved both survival and quality of life. Cost-effectiveness was a prespecified CABANA secondary end point. METHODS: Medical resource use data were collected for all CABANA patients (N=2204). Costs for hospital-based care were assigned using prospectively collected bills from US patients (n=1171); physician and medication costs were assigned using the Medicare Fee Schedule and National Average Drug Acquisition Costs, respectively. Extrapolated life expectancies were estimated using age-based survival models. Quality-of-life adjustments were based on EQ-5D-based utilities measured during the trial. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, comparing ablation with drug therapy on the basis of intention-to-treat, and assessed from the US health care sector perspective. RESULTS: Costs in the first 3 months averaged $20 794±SD 1069 higher with ablation compared with drug therapy. The cumulative within-trial 5-year cost difference was $19 245 (95% CI, $11 360-$27 170) and the lifetime mean cost difference was $15 516 (95% CI, -$2963 to $35,512) higher with ablation than with drug therapy. The drug therapy arm accrued an average of 12.5 life-years (LYs) and 10.7 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). For the ablation arm, the corresponding estimates were 12.6 LYs and 11.0 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $57 893 per QALY gained, with 75% of bootstrap replications yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$100 000 per QALY gained. With no quality-of-life/utility adjustments, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $183 318 per LY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation was economically attractive compared with drug therapy in the CABANA Trial overall at present benchmarks for health care value in the United States on the basis of projected incremental QALYs but not LYs alone.

Cost-Effectiveness of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Versus Medicine in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: The STICH Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The STICH Randomized Clinical Trial (Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure) demonstrated that coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) reduced all-cause mortality rates out to 10 years compared with medical therapy alone (MED) in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and reduced left ventricular function (ejection fraction ≤35%). We examined the economic implications of these results. METHODS: We used a decision-analytic patient-level simulation model to estimate the lifetime costs and benefits of CABG and MED using patient-level resource use and clinical data collected in the STICH trial. Patient-level costs were calculated by applying externally derived US cost weights to resource use counts during trial follow-up. A 3% discount rate was applied to both future costs and benefits. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio assessed from the US health care sector perspective. RESULTS: For the CABG arm, we estimated 6.53 quality-adjusted life-years (95% CI, 5.70-7.53) and a lifetime cost of $140 059 (95% CI, $106 401 to $180 992). For the MED arm, the corresponding estimates were 5.52 (95% CI, 5.06-6.09) quality-adjusted life-years and $74 894 lifetime cost (95% CI, $58 372 to $93 541). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for CABG compared with MED was $63 989 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. At a societal willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, CABG was found to be economically favorable compared with MED in 87% of microsimulations. CONCLUSIONS: In the STICH trial, in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and reduced left ventricular function, CABG was economically attractive relative to MED at current benchmarks for value in the United States. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT00023595.

Association between economic and arrhythmic burden of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in patients with cardiac implanted electronic devices.

BACKGROUND: As the prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) increases, a greater understanding of the costs associated with AF care is required. While individuals with greater arrhythmic burden may interact with the health system more frequently, the relationship between AF burden and costs remains undefined. METHODS: In a longitudinal patient cohort with paroxysmal AF and newly implanted cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) (2010-2016), we linked CIED remote-monitoring data with Medicare claims to assess the association between the 30-day averaged device-detected daily percentage of time in AF ("AF burden") and healthcare costs. RESULTS: Among 39,345 patients, the mean age was 77.1 ± 8.7 years, 60.7% were male, and the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.9 ± 1.3. The mean total 1-year costs were $18,668 ± 29,173, driven by hospitalization costs where two-thirds of admissions were due to heart failure. Increasing AF burden was associated with increasing costs: $17,860 ± 28,525 for 0% daily AF burden; $18,840 ± 29,104 for 0-5% daily AF burden; and $20,968 ± 31,228 for 5-98% daily AF burden. There was a linear relationship between AF burden expressed as a continuous variable and 1-year costs (adjusted cost rate ratio 1.031 per 10% daily duration in AF, 95% confidence interval 1.023-1.038; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Among older patients with paroxysmal AF and CIEDs, increasing AF burden is associated with higher healthcare costs. As the observational study design is unable to determine causal relationships, prospective study is required to explore the intriguing hypothesis that targeted AF strategies, including comorbidity management, that reduce AF burden may also reduce the high annual costs associated with AF.

Bimodal distribution of atrial fibrillation burden in 3 distinct cohorts: What is 'paroxysmal' atrial fibrillation?

BACKGROUND: Burden of atrial fibrillation (AF), as a continuous measure, is an emerging alternative classification often assumed to increase linearly with progression of disease. Yet there are no descriptions of AF burden distributions across populations. METHODS: We examined patterns of AF burden (% time in AF) across 3 different cohorts: outpatients with AF undergoing Holter monitoring in a national registry (ORBIT-AF II), routine outpatients undergoing Holter monitoring in a tertiary healthcare system (UHealth), and patients >= 65 years with cardiac implantable electronic devices (Merlin.netTM linked to Medicare). RESULTS: We included 2,058 ORBIT-AF II patients, 4,537 UHealth patients, and 39,710 from Merlin.net. Mean age ranged from 56 to 77 years, sex ranged from 40% to 61% male, and mean CHA2DS2-VASc scores ranged from 2.2 to 4.9. Across all cohorts, AF burden demonstrated skewed frequency towards the extremes, with the vast majority of patients having either very low or very high AF burden. This bimodal distribution was consistent across cohorts, across clinically-documented AF types (paroxysmal v persistent), patients with or without a known AF diagnosis, and among patients with different types of cardiac implantable electronic devices. CONCLUSIONS: Across 3 broad, diverse cohorts with continuous monitoring, distribution of AF burden was consistently skewed towards the extremes without an even, linear distribution or progression. As AF burden is increasingly recognized as a descriptor and potential risk-stratifier, these findings have important implications for future research and patient care.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Palliative Care: Insights from the PAL-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: In a randomized control trial, Palliative Care in Heart Failure (PAL-HF) improved heart failure-related quality of life, though cost-effectiveness remains unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the PAL-HF trial, which provided outpatient palliative care to patients with advanced heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: Outcomes for usual care and PAL-HF strategies were compared using a Markov cohort model over 36 months from a payer perspective. The model parameters were informed by PAL-HF trial data and supplemented with meta-analyses and Medicare administrative data. Outcomes included hospitalization, place of death, Medicare expenditures, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Simulated mortality rates were the same for PAL-HF and usual care cohorts, at 89.7% at 36 months. In the base case analysis, the PAL-HF intervention resulted in an incremental gain of 0.03 QALYs and an incremental cost of $964 per patient for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $29,041 per QALY. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, an intervention cost of up to $140 per month is cost effective at $50,000 per QALY. Of 1000 simulations, the PC intervention had a 66.1% probability of being cost effective at a $50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold assuming no decrease in hospitalization. In a scenario analysis, PAL-HF decreased payer spending through reductions in noncardiovascular hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: These results from this single-center trial are encouraging that palliative care for advanced heart failure is an economically attractive intervention. Confirmation of these findings in larger multicenter trials will be an important part of developing the evidence to support more widespread implementation of the PAL-HF palliative care intervention.

Disparities in Cardiovascular Research Output and Disease Outcomes among High-, Middle- and Low-Income Countries - An Analysis of Global Cardiovascular Publications over the Last Decade (2008-2017).

Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Health research is crucial to managing disease burden. Previous work has highlighted marked discrepancies in research output and disease burden between high-income countries (HICs) and low- and lower-middle-income countries (LI-LMICs) and there is little data to understand whether this gap has bridged in recent years. We conducted a global, country level bibliometric analysis of CVD publications with respect to trends in disease burden and county development indicators. Methods: A search filter with a precision and recall of 0.92 and 0.91 respectively was developed to extract cardiovascular publications from the Web of Science (WOS) for the years 2008-2017. Data for disease burden and country development indicators were extracted from the Global Burden of Disease and the World Bank database respectively. Results: Our search revealed 847,708 CVD publications for the period 2008-17, with a 43.4% increase over the decade. HICs contributed 81.1% of the global CVD research output and accounted for 8.1% and 8.5% of global CVD DALY losses deaths respectively. LI-LMICs contributed 2.8% of the total output and accounted for 59.5% and 57.1% global CVD DALY losses and death rates. Conclusions: A glaring disparity in research output and disease burden persists. While LI-LMICs contribute to the majority of DALYs and mortality from CVD globally, their contribution to research output remains the lowest. These data call on national health budgets and international funding support to allocate funds to strengthen research capacity and translational research to impact CVD burden in LI-LMICs.

Economic Evaluation of Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction may improve survival and other cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: We constructed a decision-analytic Markov model to estimate the costs and benefits of catheter ablation and medical management in patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%) and atrial fibrillation over a lifetime horizon. Evidence from the published literature informed the model inputs, including clinical effectiveness data from meta-analyses. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. A 3% discount rate was applied to both future costs and benefits. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio assessed from the US health care sector perspective. RESULTS: Catheter ablation was associated with 6.47 (95% CI, 5.89-6.93) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and a total cost of $105 657 (95% CI, $55 311-$191 934; 2018 US dollars), compared with 5.30 (95% CI, 5.20-5.39) QALYs and $63 040 (95% CI, $37 624-$102 260) for medical management. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for catheter ablation compared with medical management was $38 496 (95% CI, $5583-$117 510) per QALY gained. Model inputs with the greatest variation on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates were the cost of ablation and the effect of catheter ablation on mortality reduction. When assuming a more conservative estimate of the treatment effect of catheter ablation on mortality (hazard ratio of 0.86), the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $74 403 per QALY gained. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained, atrial fibrillation ablation was found to be economically favorable compared with medical management in 95% of simulations. CONCLUSIONS: Catheter ablation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients and atrial fibrillation may be considered economically attractive at current benchmarks for societal willingness-to-pay in the United States.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Anatomic vs Functional Index Testing in Patients With Low-Risk Stable Chest Pain.

Importance: Both noninvasive anatomic and functional testing strategies are now routinely used as initial workup in patients with low-risk stable chest pain (SCP). Objective: To determine whether anatomic approaches (ie, coronary computed tomography angiography [CTA] and coronary CTA supplemented with noninvasive fractional flow reserve [FFRCT], performed in patients with 30% to 69% stenosis) are cost-effective compared with functional testing for the assessment of low-risk SCP. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cost-effectiveness analysis used an individual-based Markov microsimulation model for low-risk SCP. The model was developed using patient data from the Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain (PROMISE) trial. The model was validated by comparing model outcomes with outcomes observed in the PROMISE trial for anatomic (coronary CTA) and functional (stress testing) strategies, including diagnostic test results, referral to invasive coronary angiography (ICA), coronary revascularization, incident major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), and costs during 60 days and 2 years. The validated model was used to determine whether anatomic approaches are cost-effective over a lifetime compared with functional testing. Exposure: Choice of index test for evaluation of low-risk SCP. Main Outcomes and Measures: Downstream ICA and coronary revascularization, MACE (death, nonfatal myocardial infarction), cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of competing strategies. Results: The model cohort included 10 003 individual patients (median [interquartile range] age, 60.0 [54.4-65.9] years; 5270 [52.7%] women; 7693 [77.4%] White individuals), who entered the model 100 times. The Markov model accurately estimated the test assignment, results of anatomic and functional index testing, referral to ICA, revascularization, MACE, and costs at 60 days and 2 years compared with observed data in PROMISE (eg, coronary CTA: ICA, 12.2% [95% CI, 10.9%-13.5%] vs 12.3% [95% CI, 12.2%-12.4%]; revascularization, 6.2% [95% CI, 5.5%-6.9%] vs 6.4% [95% CI, 6.3%-6.5%]; functional strategy: ICA, 8.1% [95% CI, 7.4%-8.9%] vs 8.2% [95% CI, 8.1%-8.3%]; revascularization, 3.2% [95% CI, 2.7%-3.7%] vs 3.3% [95% CI, 3.2%-3.4%]; 2-year MACE rates: coronary CTA, 2.1% [95% CI, 1.7%-2.5%] vs 2.3% [95% CI, 2.2%-2.4%]; functional strategy, 2.2% [95% CI, 1.8%-2.6%] vs 2.4% [95% CI, 2.3%-2.4%]). Anatomic approaches led to higher ICA and revascularization rates at 60 days, 2 years, and 5 years compared with functional testing but were more effective in patient selection for ICA (eg, 60-day revascularization-to-ICA ratio, CTA: 53.7% [95% CI, 53.3%-54.0%]; CTA with FFRCT: 59.5% [95% CI, 59.2%-59.8%]; functional testing: 40.7% [95% CI, 40.4%-50.0%]). Over a lifetime, anatomic approaches gained an additional 6 months in perfect health compared with functional testing (CTA, 25.16 [95% CI, 25.14-25.19] QALYs; CTA with FFRCT, 25.14 [95% CI, 25.12-25.17] QALYs; functional testing, 24.68 [95% CI, 24.66-24.70] QALYs). Anatomic strategies were less costly and more effective; thus, CTA with FFRCT dominated and CTA alone was cost-effective (ICERs ranged from $1912/QALY for women and $3,559/QALY for men) compared with functional testing. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, anatomic approaches were cost-effective in more than 65% of scenarios, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/QALY. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this study suggest that anatomic strategies may present a more favorable initial diagnostic option in the evaluation of low-risk SCP compared with functional testing.

Cost-Effectiveness of Extended Electrocardiogram Monitoring for Atrial Fibrillation After Stroke: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Management of cryptogenic stroke involves the identification of modifiable risk factors, such as atrial fibrillation (AF). Extended rhythm monitoring increases AF detection rates but at an increased device cost compared with conventional Holter monitoring. The objective of the study was to identify and synthesize the existing literature on the cost-effectiveness of prolonged rhythm monitoring devices for AF detection in cryptogenic stroke. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of available economic evaluations of prolonged ECG monitoring for AF detection following cryptogenic stroke compared with standard care. RESULTS: Of the 530 unique citations, 8 studies assessed the cost-utility of prolonged ECG monitoring compared with standard care following cryptogenic stroke. The prolonged ECG monitoring strategies included 7-day ambulatory monitoring, 30-day external loop recorders or intermittent ECG monitoring, and implantable loop recorders. The majority of cost-utility analyses reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios below $50 000 per QALY gained; and two studies reported a cost-savings. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited economic literature on the cost-effectiveness of extended ECG monitoring devices for detection of atrial fibrillation in cryptogenic stroke. In patients with cryptogenic stroke, extended ECG monitoring for AF detection may be economically attractive when traditional willingness-to-pay thresholds are adopted. However, there was substantial variation in the reported ICERs. The direct comparison of cost-effectiveness across technologies is limited by heterogeneity in modeling assumptions.

Assessment of Limitations to Optimization of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy in Heart Failure From the GUIDE-IT Trial: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Despite evidence that guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) improves outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction, many patients are undertreated. The Guiding Evidence-Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment (GUIDE-IT) trial tested whether a strategy of using target concentrations of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) to guide optimization of GDMT could improve outcomes. Objective: To examine medical therapy for HF in GUIDE-IT and potential reasons why the intervention did not produce improvements in medical therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: GUIDE-IT, a randomized clinical trial performed at 45 sites in the United States and Canada, was conducted from January 16, 2013, to September 20, 2016. A total of 894 patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (≤40%) were randomized to NT-proBNP-guided treatment with a goal to suppress NT-proBNP concentrations to less than 1000 pg/mL vs usual care. This secondary analysis examined the medical therapy titration and reasons why the intervention did not produce improvements in care and outcomes. Data were analyzed March 27 to June 28, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: For each encounter, medication titrations were captured. A reason was requested if a modification was not made. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to assess the independent association of drug class with outcomes. Results: Among the 838 patients available for analysis (566 men [67.5%]; median age, 62.0 years), 6223 visits occurred during 24 months. Adjustments of HF medication were made during 2847 of 5218 qualified visits (54.6%) (all usual care visits and all guided care visits with NT-proBNP level ≥1000 pg/mL) in 862 patients (96.4%). Most adjustments occurred within the first 6 months, primarily within the first 6 weeks. The most common reasons for not adjusting were "clinically stable" and "already at maximally tolerated therapy." Only 130 patients (15.5%) achieved optimal GDMT (≥50% of the target dose of ß-blockers or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers or any dose of mineralocorticoid antagonists) at 6 months, an increase from the baseline (79 of 891 [8.9%]) but not different by treatment arm. Higher doses of ß-blockers were associated with reduced risk of the composite outcome of HF hospitalization and cardiovascular death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-1.00; P = .008) and of all-cause death (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99; P = .01). Higher doses of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.93; P < .001) and angiotensin receptor blockers (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.99; P = .04) were associated with reduced risk of all-cause death. Increasing doses of mineralocorticoid antagonists did not appear to be associated with improved outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Despite a protocol-driven approach, many patients in GUIDE-IT did not receive medication adjustments and did not achieve optimal GDMT, including those with known elevated NT-proBNP concentrations. These results suggest that opportunities exist to titrate medications for maximal benefit in HF. GUIDE-IT may have failed to achieve treatment benefit because of therapeutic inertia in clinical practice, or current GDMT goals may be unrealistic. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01685840.

Clinical and Economic Implications of Inconclusive Noninvasive Test Results in Stable Patients With Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: Insights From the PROMISE Trial.

BACKGROUND: Inconclusive noninvasive tests complicate the care of patients with suspected coronary artery disease, but their prevalence and impact on management, outcomes, and costs are not well described. METHODS: PROMISE (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) patients were randomized to stress testing (n=4533) or computed tomographic angiography (CTA; n=4677). We assessed relationships between inconclusive results, subsequent testing, a composite outcome (death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina), and healthcare expenditures. RESULTS: Overall, 8.0% of tests were inconclusive (9.7% stress, 6.4% CTA). Compared with negative tests, inconclusive tests were more often referred to a second noninvasive test (stress: 14.6% versus 8.5%, odds ratio [OR], 1.91; CTA: 36.5% versus 8.4%, OR, 5.95; P<0.001) and catheterization (stress: 5.5% versus 2.4%, OR, 2.36; CTA: 23.4% versus 4.1%, OR, 6.49; P<0.001), and composite outcomes were higher for both inconclusive tests (stress: 3.7% versus 2.0%, hazard ratio, 1.81, P=0.034; CTA: 5.0% versus 2.2%, hazard ratio, 1.85; P=0.044) and positive tests (stress: 8.3% versus 2.0%, hazard ratio, 3.50; CTA: 9.2% versus 2.2%, hazard ratio, 3.66; P<0.001). Twenty-four-month costs were higher for inconclusive tests than negative tests by $2905 (stress) and $4030 (CTA). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable chest pain undergoing a noninvasive test, inconclusive results occurred in 6% of CTA and 10% of stress tests. Compared with those with conclusive negative tests, individuals with inconclusive results more often underwent subsequent testing, had increased medical costs, and experienced worse outcomes. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01174550.

Levosimendan in patients with reduced left ventricular function undergoing isolated coronary or valve surgery.

OBJECTIVE: In the Levosimendan in Patients with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction Undergoing Cardiac Surgery Requiring Cardiopulmonary Bypass (LEVO-CTS) trial, no differences in clinical outcomes were observed between levosimendan and placebo in a broad population of patients undergoing cardiac surgery. In previous studies, the benefits of levosimendan were most clearly evident in patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. In a prespecified analysis of LEVO-CTS, we compared treatment-related outcomes and costs across types of cardiac surgical procedures. METHODS: Overall, 563 (66.4%) patients underwent isolated CABG, 97 (11.4%) isolated valve, and 188 (22.2%) combined CABG/valve surgery. Outcomes included the co-primary 4-component composite (30-day mortality, 30-day renal replacement, 5-day myocardial infarction, or 5-day mechanical circulatory support), the 2-component composite (30-day mortality or 5-day mechanical circulatory support), 90-day mortality, low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS), and 30-day medical costs. RESULTS: The 4- and 2-component outcomes were not significantly different with levosimendan and placebo in patients undergoing CABG (15.2% vs 19.3% and 7.8% vs 10.4%), valve (49.0% vs 33.3% and 22.4% vs 2.1%), or combined procedures (39.6% vs 35.9% and 24.0% vs 19.6%). Ninety-day mortality was lower with levosimendan in isolated CABG (2.1% vs 7.9%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-0.64), but not significantly different in valve (8.3% vs 2.0%; HR, 4.10; 95% CI, 0.46-36.72) or combined procedures (10.4% vs 7.6%; HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.53-3.64; interaction P = .011). LCOS (12.0% vs 22.1%; odds ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.30-0.76; interaction P = .118) was significantly lower in levosimendan-treated patients undergoing isolated CABG. Excluding study drug costs, median and mean 30-day costs were $53,707 and $65,852 for levosimendan and $54,636 and $67,122 for placebo, with a 30-day mean difference (levosimendan - placebo) of -$1270 (bootstrap 95% CI, -$8722 to $6165). CONCLUSIONS: Levosimendan was associated with lower 90-day mortality and LCOS in patients undergoing isolated CABG, but not in those undergoing isolated valve or combined CABG/valve procedures.

Acute and 1-Year Hospitalization Costs for Acute Myocardial Infarction Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Results From the TRANSLATE-ACS Registry.

Background Hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (MI) in the United States is both common and expensive, but those features alone provide little insight into cost-saving opportunities. Methods and Results To understand the cost drivers during hospitalization for acute MI and in the following year, we prospectively studied 11 969 patients with acute MI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention at 233 US hospitals (2010-2013) from the TRANSLATE-ACS (Treatment With ADP Receptor Inhibitors: Longitudinal Assessment of Treatment Patterns and Events After Acute Coronary Syndrome) registry. Baseline costs were collected in a random subset (n=4619 patients, 54% ST-segment-elevation MI [STEMI]), while follow-up costs out to 1 year were collected for all patients. The mean index length of stay was 3.1 days (for both STEMI and non-STEMI) and mean intensive care unit length of stay was 1.2 days (1.4 days for STEMI and 1.0 days for non-STEMI). Index hospital costs averaged $18 931 ($19 327 for STEMI, $18 465 for non-STEMI), with 45% catheterization laboratory-related and 20% attributable to postprocedure hospital stay. Patient factors, including severity of illness and extent of coronary disease, and hospital characteristics, including for profit status and geographic region, identified significant variations in cost. Intensive care was used for 53% of non-STEMI and increased costs by $3282. Postdischarge 1-year costs averaged $8037, and 48% of patients were rehospitalized (half within 2 months and 57% with a cardiovascular diagnosis). Conclusions While much of the cost of patients with acute MI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention is probably not modifiable by the care team, cost reductions are still possible through quality-preserving practice efficiencies, such as need-based use rather than routine use of intensive care unit for patients with stable non-STEMI. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00097591.