Cost of atrial fibrillation: invasive vs non-invasive management in 2012.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia. It places an enormous burden on the patients, caregivers and the society at large. As a chronic illness, AF accrues significant costs related to clinical presentation, complications and loss of productivity. Novel invasive approaches to AF promise a cure in some patients and a significant reduction in AF burden in others, but are very expensive. This paper will address the cost of conventional and invasive strategies in AF care and will review the evidence on the comparative cost effectiveness of these approaches.

Current issues in atrial fibrillation.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia. It places an enormous burden on the patients, caregivers, and the society at large. While the main themes in the care of an AF patient have not changed over the years and continue to focus on stroke prevention, control of the ventricular, rate and rhythm maintenance, there have been a number of new developments in each of these realms. This paper will discuss the "hot" topics in AF in 2012 including new and upcoming medical and invasive management strategies for this condition.

Cost considerations in the management of atrial fibrillation - impact of dronedarone.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia. It is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. At the societal level, AF carries an enormous cost. Strategies aimed at reducing AF morbidity and mortality and containing the associated fiscal burden are of paramount importance. This review will discuss AF treatment strategies and economics, focusing on the impact of dronedarone, a novel antiarrhythmic agent.

Cost of AF Ablation: Where Do We Stand?

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common and frequently disabling chronic condition associated with significant patient morbidity and affecting an increasing stratum of our ageing society. Direct costs related to atrial fibrillation are comprised from direct cost of medical therapy, catheter ablation, and related hospitalizations and imaging procedures, with indirect costs related to complications of the primary therapeutic strategy, management of related conditions, as well as disability and loss in quality of life related to AF. Over the last decade, catheter ablation became a promising alternative to rate and rhythm control among symptomatic AF patients. The purpose of this paper is to describe the evidence on the financial implications related to ablation based on published data and authors' experience.

Dofetilide is safe and effective in preventing atrial fibrillation recurrences in patients accepted for catheter ablation.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of dofetilide among patients refractory to other anti-arrhythmic drugs (AADs) and accepted for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-seven of 454 patients (69% male, 58% paroxysmal, age 60 +/- 10 years, AF duration 8 +/- 7 years) scheduled for AF ablation between February 2004 and May 2008 were treated with dofetilide. Patients had failed 1.9 +/- 1.1 AADs. Anti-arrhythmic drugs were stopped five half-lives before ablation and 3 months for amiodarone. Patients were followed for 15 +/- 7 months with routine and symptom-driven monitoring. Success was defined as no further AF and partial success as a 50% reduction in frequency/duration of AF episodes. Thirty-six patients started dofetilide 158 +/- 167 days before ablation: 9 had no improvement, 16 experienced partial success, 8 had no further AF, and 2 improved enough to forgo ablation. Seventy-one patients started dofetilide immediately following ablation, of which 14 had no improvement, 22 experienced partial success, and 32 had no further AF. Twenty patients started dofetilide 119 +/- 153 days post-ablation, of which four had no improvement, seven experienced partial success, and nine had no further AF. Six patients discontinued dofetilide during initiation for QT prolongation. CONCLUSION: Dofetilide appears safe and effective in preventing AF in patients refractory to other AADs undergoing catheter ablation.

Risk stratification, management and outcomes of patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome: a Canadian teaching hospital perspective.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTACS) recommend tailoring the intensity of therapeutic management according to the baseline risk of the patient. Although the clinical characteristics, risk stratification and therapeutic management of contemporary patients with NSTACS have been reported for other geographical regions, this information has not been documented from a Canadian perspective. OBJECTIVES: To describe the baseline clinical characteristics, therapeutic management and clinical outcomes of contemporary patients with NSTACS at a Canadian, tertiary care, teaching hospital, and to retrospectively risk stratify the patients with NSTACS according to the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) risk guidelines to characterize management and outcomes according to the various risk classifications. METHODS: Baseline demographics, procedural variables and clinical outcome data were retrospectively collected in 380 patients with a diagnosis of NSTACS from July 1999 to July 2000. Patients were retrospectively categorized into high, intermediate and low risk categories using two classification schemes. RESULTS: According to the ACC/AHA guidelines, 10.3% and 89.7% of patients were intermediate and high risk, respectively. Applying the TIMI risk score, 20.0%, 52.4% and 27.6% of patients were low, intermediate and high risk, respectively. The use of antithrombotic, acetylsalicylic acid and beta-blocker therapy was very high both in hospital and at discharge. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and lipid lowering agents were all underutilized. The use of pharmacological therapies and cardiovascular interventions did not appear to correlate with the level of risk of the patient, at least within these classification schemes. Adverse clinical events in hospital and length of hospital stay increased as the risk level of the patients increased. CONCLUSIONS: According to the ACC/AHA guidelines, patients with a discharge diagnosis of NSTACS in a nontrial setting are a high risk population, requiring prompt recognition and aggressive management. This study serves as an integral part of clinical practice to continually evaluate the quality of medical care.