Health economic evaluation of nation-wide screening programmes for atrial fibrillation in the Netherlands.

AIMS: Screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) is recommended by the European Society of Cardiology guidelines to prevent strokes. Cost-effectiveness analyses of different screening programmes for AF are difficult to compare because of varying settings and models used. We compared the impact and cost-effectiveness of various AF screening programmes in the Netherlands. METHODS AND RESULTS: The base case economic analysis was conducted from the societal perspective. Health effects and costs were analysed using a Markov model. The main model inputs were derived from the ARISTOTLE, RE-LY, and ROCKET AF trials combined with Dutch observational data. Univariate, probabilistic sensitivity, and various scenario analyses were performed. The maximum number of newly detected AF patients in the Netherlands ranged from 4554 to 39 270, depending on the screening strategy used. Adequate treatment with anticoagulation would result in a maximum of >3000 strokes prevented using single-time point AF screening. Compared with no screening, screening 100 000 people provided a gain in QALYs ranging from 984 to 8727 and a mean cost difference ranging from -6650 000€ to 898 000€, depending on the screening strategy used. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) demonstrated a 100% likelihood that screening all patients ≥75 years visiting the geriatric outpatient clinic was cost-saving. Four out of six strategies were cost-saving in ≥74% of the PSA simulations. Out of these, opportunistic screening of all patients ≥65 years visiting the GPs office had the highest impact on strokes prevented. CONCLUSION: Most single-time point AF screening strategies are cost-saving and have an important impact on stroke prevention.

Acute heart failure and iron deficiency: a prospective, multicentre, observational study.

AIMS: The prevalence and the natural course of iron deficiency (ID) in acute heart failure (AHF) are still unclear. We investigated the prevalence of ID in unselected patients admitted with AHF on admission, at discharge and up to 3 months thereafter. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this prospective, multicentre, observational study, 742 patients admitted with AHF were enrolled. The main study outcome was the percentage of patients with ID (ferritin <100 µg/L = absolute ID or ferritin 100-299 µg/L and transferrin saturation <20% = functional ID) at admission (T0), after clinical stabilization prior to discharge (T1), and 10 ± 6 weeks after discharge (T2). At T0, ID was present in 71.8% of the patients (44.1% absolute and 27.7% functional ID). At T1 and T2, ID was present in 56.4% (32.4% absolute and 24% functional ID) and 50.3% (36.8% absolute and 13.5% functional ID), respectively. Absolute ID persisted from T0 to T2 in 66% of the patients, while functional ID resolved in 56% of the patients. Ferritin (median [interquartile range] 124 µg/L [56-247] to 150 µg/L [73-277]), transferrin saturation (15% [10-20] to 18% [12-27]), and iron levels (9 µmol/L [6-13] to 11 µmol/L [8-16]) increased significantly (all P < 0.001) from T0 to T1. Transferrin saturation (to 21% [15-29]) and iron levels (to 13 µmol/L [9-17]) also increased significantly (both P < 0.01) from T1 to T2 without iron supplementation. CONCLUSIONS: Iron deficiency is highly prevalent in patients with AHF, but resolves during treatment in some patients, even without iron supplementation. Absolute ID is more likely to persist over time, whereas functional ID often resolves during treatment of AHF, representing probably a reduced iron availability rather than a true deficiency.

Effect of Using the HEART Score in Patients With Chest Pain in the Emergency Department: A Stepped-Wedge, Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The HEART (History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors, and initial Troponin) score is an easy-to-apply instrument to stratify patients with chest pain according to their short-term risk for major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), but its effect on daily practice is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To measure the effect of use of the HEART score on patient outcomes and use of health care resources. DESIGN: Stepped-wedge, cluster randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01756846). SETTING: Emergency departments in 9 Dutch hospitals. PATIENTS: Unselected patients with chest pain presenting at emergency departments in 2013 and 2014. INTERVENTION: All hospitals started with usual care. Every 6 weeks, 1 hospital was randomly assigned to switch to "HEART care," during which physicians calculated the HEART score to guide patient management. MEASUREMENTS: For safety, a noninferiority margin of a 3.0% absolute increase in MACEs within 6 weeks was set. Other outcomes included use of health care resources, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 3648 patients were included (1827 receiving usual care and 1821 receiving HEART care). Six-week incidence of MACEs during HEART care was 1.3% lower than during usual care (upper limit of the 1-sided 95% CI, 2.1% [within the noninferiority margin of 3.0%]). In low-risk patients, incidence of MACEs was 2.0% (95% CI, 1.2% to 3.3%). No statistically significant differences in early discharge, readmissions, recurrent emergency department visits, outpatient visits, or visits to general practitioners were observed. LIMITATION: Physicians were hesitant to refrain from admission and diagnostic tests in patients classified as low risk by the HEART score. CONCLUSION: Using the HEART score during initial assessment of patients with chest pain is safe, but the effect on health care resources is limited, possibly due to nonadherence to management recommendations. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development.