ABSTRACT
AIMS: PFO closure is a percutaneous intervention, which aims to reduce risk of recurrent stroke by preventing paradoxical embolism. The objective of this study was to measure procedural safety and longer-term effectiveness of PFO closure in a UK setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: Prospective registry data from patients with cryptogenic stroke eligible for PFO closure were collected for up to 2 years and linked to routine data sources for additional follow-up. Outcomes of interest included procedural success rate, health related quality of life, and longer-term death and neurological event rates. A total of 973 PFO closure procedures in 971 patients were included in analysis. Successful device implantation was achieved in 99.4 [95% CI 98.6 to 99.8]% of procedures, with one in-hospital death. During median follow-up of 758 (Q1:Q3 527:968) days, 33 patients experienced a subsequent neurological event, 76% of which were ischaemic in origin. Neurological event rate was 2.7 [95%CI 1.6 to 3.9]% at 1-year (n = 751) and 4.1 [95% CI 2.6 to 5.5]% at 2-years (n = 463) using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Improvements in patient quality of life (utility and visual analogue scale) were observed at 6-weeks and 6-months follow-up. CONCLUSION: Our observational study demonstrates that PFO closure for prevention of recurrent stroke is a relatively safe procedure but in routine clinical practice is associated with a slightly higher risk of recurrent neurological events than in randomised trials. We hypothesize that our study enrolled unselected patients with higher baseline risk, who were excluded from randomised trials, but who may benefit from a similar relative reduction in risk from the intervention.
Subject(s)
Foramen Ovale, Patent , Septal Occluder Device , Stroke , Cardiac Catheterization/methods , Foramen Ovale, Patent/complications , Foramen Ovale, Patent/surgery , Hospital Mortality , Hospitals , Humans , Quality of Life , Recurrence , Registries , Secondary Prevention/methods , Stroke/epidemiology , Stroke/etiology , Stroke/prevention & control , Treatment Outcome , United Kingdom/epidemiologyABSTRACT
AIMS: Non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) greatly increases the risk of ischaemic stroke. For people with contraindications to oral anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) provides a non-pharmacological management alternative. The aim of this study was to measure the procedural safety and longer-term effectiveness of LAAO for AF in a UK setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a prospective, single-armed registry of patients with AF for whom anticoagulation was unsuitable. Registry data were collected between October 2014 and April 2018 and linked to routine data sources for follow-up. Data from 583 LAAO procedures were entered into the registry, of which 537 (from 525 patients) were eligible for inclusion (median CHA2DS2-VASc score 4). A closure device was successfully implanted in 93.4% of cases, with a procedural success rate (device implanted without major complication) of 88.9%. Five patients (1.0%) died in hospital. During follow-up [median 729 (Q1:Q3, 523:913) days] 45 patients experienced neurological events; 33 of which were ischaemic. The ischaemic neurological event rate was 3.3 (1.6-5.0)% at 1 year (n = 387) and 7.0 (4.3-9.6)% at 2 years (n = 196). There were significant improvements in overall patient health (via Visual Analogue Scale) measured at 6 weeks and 6 months, but no significant improvements observed in patient utility over time. CONCLUSION: The findings of our study suggest that LAAO is not without procedural risk, but that this risk may be justified in high-risk patients with AF who cannot take an anticoagulant. Moreover, the data do not provide support for more widespread use of LAAO as the complication rate was relatively high and would be difficult to justify in many patients with AF who tolerate anticoagulation.
Subject(s)
Atrial Appendage , Atrial Fibrillation , Brain Ischemia , Stroke , Atrial Appendage/surgery , Atrial Fibrillation/complications , Atrial Fibrillation/epidemiology , Atrial Fibrillation/surgery , Brain Ischemia/complications , Hospitals , Humans , Information Storage and Retrieval , Registries , Stroke/epidemiology , Stroke/etiology , Stroke/prevention & control , Treatment Outcome , United Kingdom/epidemiologyABSTRACT
AIMS: Percutaneous mitral valve leaflet repair is a treatment option for some people with severe mitral valve regurgitation for whom conventional mitral valve surgery is clinically inappropriate. This study aimed to determine the safety, efficacy, and costs of percutaneous mitral valve leaflet repair, using the MitraClip device in a UK setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a prospective, single-armed registry with a follow-up of 2 years that reported a range of procedural, clinical and patient-orientated outcomes. Registry data were linked to routine data sources to allow for more comprehensive follow up concerning mortality and healthcare resource use. The registry received data for 199 mainly elective patients with mixed mitral regurgitation aetiology. A MitraClip device was implanted in 187 patients (94%), with a procedural success rate of 86%, with 8% of patients having a serious in-hospital adverse event (including 5% mortality). Percutaneous mitral valve leaflet repair reduced mitral regurgitation from 100% MR grade ≥ 3+ to 7% at discharge. There were corresponding improvements in New York Heart Association functional class, reducing from 92% (class ≥ 3) at baseline to 18% at 6 weeks. There were significant improvements in generic and disease specific quality of life indicators up to 2 years. The all-cause mortality rate was estimated to be 12.7% (95% CI 7.5 to 17.7%) at 1 year. Percutaneous mitral valve leaflet repair was associated with reduced hospital readmissions and potential cost-savings in post-procedural care. CONCLUSION: This study shows that percutaneous mitral valve leaflet repair using MitraClip is a relatively safe and effective treatment in patients unable to tolerate surgery and has the potential to reduce ongoing healthcare costs in the UK.
Subject(s)
Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation/methods , Heart Valve Prosthesis , Mitral Valve Insufficiency/surgery , Mitral Valve/surgery , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Health Care Costs , Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation/adverse effects , Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation/economics , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
The XprESS multi-sinus dilation system (XprESS) is a minimally invasive alternative to functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) used in the treatment of people with chronic or recurrent acute sinusitis refractory to medical treatment. The manufacturer of XprESS, Entellus Medical, claims the technology is as effective as FESS in improving quality of life and is associated with quicker recovery times and reduced costs. The Medical Technologies Advisory Committee (MTAC) at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) selected XprESS for evaluation. Nine trials published in 13 papers were correctly identified by the company as relevant to the decision problem, including one randomised controlled trial (REMODEL study). From this evidence, the company concluded that XprESS is as beneficial as FESS for a range of clinical endpoints. The External Assessment Centre (EAC) agreed with the company's conclusion in a subgroup of patients, but judged that the evidence did not generalise to patients within the NHS fully. The company constructed a de novo costing model. XprESS generated cost-savings of £1302 per patient compared with FESS. The EAC critiqued and updated the model's inputs, with differences in results driven by changes in assumptions on procedure duration, length of hospital stay and the proportion of procedures undertaken in an outpatient setting under local anaesthetic. Although cost-incurring in the base case, XprESS generated cost savings under certain scenarios. The MTAC reviewed the evidence and supported the case for adoption, issuing positive draft recommendations. After public consultation NICE published this as Medical Technologies Guidance 30.
Subject(s)
Cost-Benefit Analysis/statistics & numerical data , Dilatation/instrumentation , Dilatation/standards , Guidelines as Topic , Sinusitis/economics , Sinusitis/therapy , State Medicine/economics , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Chronic Disease/therapy , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , State Medicine/statistics & numerical data , Technology Assessment, Biomedical/economicsABSTRACT
The Spectra Optia® automated apheresis system, indicated for red blood cell exchange in people with sickle cell disease, underwent evaluation by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which uses its Medical Technologies Advisory Committee to make recommendations. The company (Terumo Medical Corporation) produced a submission making a case for adoption of its technology, which was critiqued by the Newcastle and York external assessment centre. Thirty retrospective observational studies were identified in their clinical submission. The external assessment centre considered these were of low methodological and reporting quality. Most were single-armed studies, with only six studies providing comparative data. The available data showed that, compared with manual red blood cell exchange, Spectra Optia reduces the frequency of exchange procedures as well as their duration, but increases the requirement for donor blood. However, other clinical and patient benefits were equivocal because of an absence of robust clinical evidence. The company provided a de novo model to support the economic proposition of the technology, and reported that in most scenarios Spectra Optia was cost saving, primarily through reduced requirement of chelation therapy to manage iron overload. The external assessment centre considered that although the cost-saving potential of Spectra Optia was plausible, the model and its clinical inputs were not sufficiently robust to demonstrate this. However, taking the evidence together with expert and patient advice, the Medical Technologies Advisory Committee considered Spectra Optia was likely to save costs, provide important patient benefits, and reduce inequality, and gave the technology a positive recommendation in Medical Technology Guidance 28.
Subject(s)
Anemia, Sickle Cell/therapy , Blood Component Removal/instrumentation , Erythrocyte Transfusion/instrumentation , Blood Component Removal/methods , Erythrocyte Transfusion/methods , Humans , Technology Assessment, Biomedical , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
In August 2012, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence produced positive diagnostics guidance on the ultrasound contrast agent SonoVue®, but recommended further research involving an estimation of the proportion of unenhanced ultrasound scans reporting, but not characterising, focal liver lesions, particularly in cirrhotic livers. Patient records from the Radiology Information System of an acute hospital trust were progressively filtered based on categorical fields and keywords in the free text reports, to obtain ultrasound records including the liver that were appropriate for manual analysis. In total, 21,731 records referred from general practice or out-patient clinics were analysed. Patients described as having cirrhosis were analysed as a subgroup. After automatic exclusion of records considered likely to be negative, 5812 records were manually read and categorised as focal liver lesion inconclusive, benign or malignant. In the general practice cohort of 9175 records, 746 reported the presence of one or more focal liver lesions, with 18.4% (95% CI 15.7% to 21.3%) of these records mentioning an inconclusive focal liver lesion. In the out-patient cohort of 12,556 records, 1437 reported one or more focal liver lesions, and 29.4% (95% CI 26.9% to 32.0%) of these were inconclusive. Cirrhosis was reported in 10.8% of the out-patient scans that also reported a focal liver lesion, and 47.4% (95% CI 39.3% to 55.6%) of these scans had an inconclusive focal liver lesion, compared with 27.3% (95% CI 24.9% to 29.8%) that were inconclusive in non-cirrhotic livers (odds ratio 2.4; 95% CI 1.7 to 3.4). This retrospective study indicates that unenhanced ultrasound scans, in which a focal liver lesion is detected, are frequently inconclusive, with the probability of an inconclusive scan being greater in out-patient than general practice referrals. Inconclusive focal liver lesions were also reported in greater proportions of cirrhotic than non-cirrhotic livers. The results of this research will inform future updates of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence diagnostics guidance.
ABSTRACT
VibraTip™ was selected by the Medical Technologies Advisory Committee (MTAC) to undergo evaluation through the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). VibraTip™ provides a vibratory stimulus for the purpose of detecting diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus, and is intended to replace the current practice of using the 128 Hz tuning fork or 10 g monofilament (comparators). The sponsor (McCallan Medical) provided clinical and economic submissions which were evaluated by an External Assessment Centre (EAC). Of six diagnostic studies identified, the EAC considered that only one was directly relevant to the assessment. This study indicated VibraTip™ had a sensitivity of 0.79 (95 % CI 0.69-0.90) and specificity of 0.82 (95 % CI 0.74-0.90) for DPN using a neurothesiometer at 25 V as a reference standard. This was non-inferior to the comparators, but the sample size (n = 141) was too small to draw unequivocal conclusions and it is unclear how generalisable results were to clinical practice. The sponsor presented a de facto cost-minimisation model that in the base case showed minimal cost savings and, in sensitivity analysis which assumed diagnostic superiority of VibraTip™, showed large savings. The EAC appraised this model and concluded it was flawed as it was not evidence based and costs were likely to be unrealistic. The MTAC considered that the technology showed promise but decided the case for adoption was not proven, and therefore made a research recommendation as is reflected in NICE Medical Technology Guidance 22.
Subject(s)
Diabetic Neuropathies/diagnosis , Diagnostic Techniques, Neurological/instrumentation , Vibration , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Diabetic Neuropathies/physiopathology , Diagnostic Techniques, Neurological/economics , England , Evidence-Based Medicine , Humans , State Medicine/economics , State Medicine/standards , Technology Assessment, Biomedical/economics , Technology Assessment, Biomedical/standards , WalesABSTRACT
The Microlife(®) 'WatchBP Home A' oscillometric blood pressure monitor detects irregular pulse, suggestive of atrial fibrillation (AF). Early detection of AF can prevent thromboembolic stroke via anticoagulation therapy. The device was considered by the Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme of the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). The sponsor (Microlife) identified 10 studies. These were reviewed by an External Assessment Centre (EAC) which considered three relevant to the decision problem, including one which found the device detected AF more accurately (sensitivity 96.8%, specificity 88.8%) than pulse palpation (87.2, 81.3%). The EAC concluded the technology had potential to improve detection of AF, but the three studies had uncertain external validity. From a cost-consequence model with a 1-year timeframe, the sponsor calculated the device would reduce electrocardiogram (ECG) referrals and prevent strokes, but incur anticoagulation therapy costs, with net NHS savings of £11.6 million and prevention of 221 strokes, annually. The EAC criticised the model for its limited time horizon, and its consideration of symptomatic AF patients who were outside the scope issued by NICE. The EAC applied a de novo Markov model, with a 10-year timeframe. The per use saving was calculated as £2.98 for asymptomatic patients aged 65-74 years and £4.26 for those aged 75-84 years, with the prevention of 53-117 nonfatal and 28-65 fatal strokes per 100,000 people screened. Following consideration by the NICE Medical Technologies Advisory Committee, NICE judged that the case for adoption was supported by the evidence (Medical Technologies Guidance 13; MTG13).
Subject(s)
Atrial Fibrillation/diagnosis , Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory/instrumentation , Hypertension/diagnosis , Anticoagulants/economics , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Atrial Fibrillation/physiopathology , Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory/economics , Cost Savings , Electrocardiography , Humans , Hypertension/physiopathology , Markov Chains , Models, Economic , Stroke/prevention & control , Technology Assessment, Biomedical , United KingdomABSTRACT
Scoliosis-structural lateral curvature of the spine-affects around four children per 1,000. The MAGEC system comprises a magnetically distractible spinal rod implant and an external remote controller, which lengthens the rod; this system avoids repeated surgical lengthening. Rod implants brace the spine internally and are lengthened as the child grows, preventing worsening of scoliosis and delaying the need for spinal fusion. The Medical Technologies Advisory Committee at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) selected the MAGEC system for evaluation in a NICE medical technologies guidance. Six studies were identified by the sponsor (Ellipse Technologies Inc.) as being relevant to the decision problem. Meta-analysis was used to compare the clinical evidence results with those of one conventional growth rod study, and equal efficacy of the two devices was concluded. The key weakness was selection of a single comparator study. The External Assessment Centre (EAC) identified 16 conventional growth rod studies and undertook meta-analyses of relevant outcomes. Its critique highlighted limitations around study heterogeneity and variations in baseline characteristics and follow-up duration, precluding the ability to draw firm conclusions. The sponsor constructed a de novo costing model showing that MAGEC rods generated cost savings of £9,946 per patient after 6 years, compared with conventional rods. The EAC critiqued and updated the model structure and inputs, calculating robust cost savings of £12,077 per patient with MAGEC rods compared with conventional rods over 6 years. The year of valuation was 2012. NICE issued a positive recommendation as supported by the evidence (Medical Technologies Guidance 18).