Assessment of Use vs Discontinuation of Oral Anticoagulation After Pulmonary Vein Isolation in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

Importance: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is a recommended treatment for patients with atrial fibrillation, but it is unclear whether it results in a lower risk of stroke. Objectives: To investigate the proportion of patients discontinuing anticoagulation treatment after PVI in association with the CHA2DS2-VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years [doubled], diabetes, stroke [doubled], vascular disease, age 65-74 years, sex category [female]) score, identify factors predicting stroke after PVI, and explore the risk of cardiovascular events after PVI in patients with and without guideline-recommended anticoagulation treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using Swedish national health registries from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2012, with a mean-follow up of 2.6 years. A total of 1585 patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PVI from the Swedish Catheter Ablation Register were included, with information about exposure to warfarin in the national quality register Auricula. Data analysis was performed from January 1, 2015, to April 30, 2016. Exposures: Warfarin treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, and death. Results: In this cohort of 1585 patients, 73.0% were male, the mean (SD) age was 59.0 (9.4) years, and the mean (SD) CHA2DS2-VASc score was 1.5 (1.4). Of the 1585 patients, 1175 were followed up for more than 1 year after PVI. Of these, 360 (30.6%) discontinued warfarin treatment during the first year. In patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or more, patients discontinuing warfarin treatment had a higher rate of ischemic stroke (5 events in 312 years at risk [1.6% per year]) compared with those continuing warfarin treatment (4 events in 1192 years at risk [0.3% per year]) (P = .046). Patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or more or those who had previously experienced an ischemic stroke displayed a higher risk of stroke if warfarin treatment was discontinued (hazard ratio, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.2-17.2; P = .02 and hazard ratio, 13.7; 95% CI, 2.0-91.9; P = .007, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings indicate that discontinuation of warfarin treatment after PVI is not safe in high-risk patients, especially those who have previously experienced an ischemic stroke.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of diagnostic algorithms of deep vein thrombosis at the emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: Suspected cases of deep vein thrombosis are common at emergency departments and they often require extensive and costly diagnostic testing. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether a diagnostic algorithm based upon pre-test probability and D-dimer in diagnosing deep vein thrombosis may be cost-effective from a societal perspective in a Swedish setting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of two alternative diagnostic algorithms were calculated using decision analysis. An algorithm which out ruled deep vein thrombosis among low probability patients with negative D-dimer was compared to a traditional algorithm including compression ultrasonography and/or contrast venography for all patients. For sensitivity analysis, a third reversed algorithm, where D-dimer was followed by pre-test probability, was analyzed. Estimates of probabilities were obtained from a prospective management study, including 357 outpatients with clinical suspicion of deep vein thrombosis. Direct costs were estimated using prices from Scania, Sweden. Indirect costs were estimated using time spent at the local emergency department and gross average wages in Sweden. RESULTS: The total cost of the pre-test probability and D-dimer algorithm was estimated to euro406 per patient and the traditional algorithm was estimated to euro581 per patient. Reversing the order of the score and test resulted in an estimate of euro421 per patient. CONCLUSION: At no significant difference in diagnostic efficacy the algorithm based upon pre-test probability and D-dimer was cost-effective, while the reversed algorithm and diagnostic imaging for all patients were not.