Impact of Atrial Fibrillation Burden on Health Care Costs and Utilization.

BACKGROUND: Integrating patient-specific cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED)-detected atrial fibrillation (AF) burden with measures of health care cost and utilization allows for an accurate assessment of the AF-related impact on health care use. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to assess the incremental cost of device-recognized AF vs no AF; compare relative costs of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (pAF), persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF), and permanent atrial fibrillation (PermAF) AF; and evaluate rates and sources of health care utilization between cohorts. METHODS: Using the de-identified Optum Clinformatics U.S. claims database (2015-2020) linked with the Medtronic CareLink database, CIED patients were identified who transmitted data ≥6 months postimplantation. Annualized per-patient costs in follow-up were analyzed from insurance claims and adjusted to 2020 U.S. dollars. Costs and rates of health care utilization were compared between patients with no AF and those with device-recognized pAF, PeAF, and PermAF. Analyses were adjusted for geographical region, insurance type, CHA2DS2-VASc score, and implantation year. RESULTS: Of 21,391 patients (mean age 72.9 ± 10.9 years; 56.3% male) analyzed, 7,798 (36.5%) had device-recognized AF. The incremental annualized increased cost in those with AF was $12,789 ± $161,749 per patient, driven by increased rates of health care encounters, adverse clinical events associated with AF, and AF-specific interventions. Among those with AF, PeAF was associated with the highest cost, driven by increased rates of inpatient and outpatient hospitalization encounters, heart failure hospitalizations, and AF-specific interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Presence of device-recognized AF was associated with increased health care cost. Among those with AF, patients with PeAF had the highest health care costs. Mechanisms for cost differentials include both disease-specific consequences and physician-directed interventions.

Contemporary clinical and economic outcomes among oral anticoagulant treated and untreated elderly patients with atrial fibrillation: Insights from the United States Medicare database.

BACKGROUND: Oral anticoagulants (OACs) mitigate the risk of stroke in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. OBJECTIVE: Elderly AF patients who were treated with OACs (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, or warfarin) were compared against AF patients who were not treated with OACs with respect to their clinical and economic outcomes. METHODS: Newly diagnosed AF patients were identified between January 2013 and December 2017 in the Medicare database. Evidence of an OAC treatment claim on or after the first AF diagnosis was used to classify patients into treatment-defined cohorts, and these cohorts were further stratified based on the initial OAC prescribed. The risks of stroke/systemic embolism (SE), major bleeding (MB), and death were analyzed using inverse probability treatment weighted time-dependent Cox regression models, and costs were compared with marginal structural models. RESULTS: The two treatment groups were composed of 1,421,187 AF patients: OAC treated (N = 583,350, 41.0% [36.4% apixaban, 4.9% dabigatran, 0.1% edoxaban, 26.7% rivaroxaban, and 31.9% warfarin patients]) and untreated (N = 837,837, 59.0%). OAC-treated patients had a lower adjusted risk of stroke/SE compared to untreated patients (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68-0.72). Additionally patients receiving OACs had a lower adjusted risk of death (HR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.55-0.56) and a higher risk of MB (HR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.54-1.59) and this trend was consistent across each OAC sub-group. The OAC-treated cohort had lower adjusted total healthcare costs per patient per month ($4,381 vs $7,172; p < .0001). CONCLUSION: For the OAC-treated cohort in this elderly US population, stroke/SE and all-cause death were lower, while risk of MB was higher. Among OAC treated patients, total healthcare costs were lower than those of the untreated cohort.

Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Elderly Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Who Are Not Candidates for Warfarin in Real-World Setting.

ABSTRACT: Limited literature has established the role of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) for elderly patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who are unsuited for warfarin. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to assess the effectiveness and safety of DOAC use in this vulnerable patient population. This was a retrospective propensity score matching cohort study. Among all patients aged 75+ years who were not candidates for warfarin, we matched those who initiated DOAC between September 2017 and September 2018 with those who did not receive DOAC or warfarin in a 1:1 ratio. Effectiveness outcome was a composite measure of stroke, transient ischemic attack, and pulmonary embolism. Safety outcome was a composite measure of non-trauma-related intracranial hemorrhage and gastrointestinal bleed. Unless patients died or lost membership, follow-up period for the effectiveness outcome was until the end of 2019, whereas the safety outcome was for a period up to 1 year. Conditional logistic regression was used to analyze both outcomes. We identified 7818 patients who met the inclusion criteria and started DOAC, which matched to 7818 patients who did not receive anticoagulants. The mean age was 82.3 ± 5.1 years, and 51.5% male. The DOAC group had a lower hazard ratio of 0.37 (confidence interval, 0.24-0.57; P < 0.01) for composite effectiveness outcomes, whereas no difference in the composite safety outcome (hazard ratio, 0.91; confidence interval, 0.65-1.25; P = 0.55) when compared with matched control. In conclusion, DOAC was found to be effective in preventing thromboembolic events in patients aged 75+ years with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who were not eligible for warfarin.

A Systematic Review of Economic Aspects of Service Interventions to Increase Anticoagulation Use in Atrial Fibrillation.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically identify and appraise existing evidence surrounding economic aspects of anticoagulation service interventions for patients with atrial fibrillation. METHODS: We searched the published and grey literature up to October 2019 to identify relevant economic evidence in any health care setting. A narrative-synthesis approach was taken to summarise evidence by economic design and type of service intervention, with costs expressed in pound sterling and valued at 2017 to 2018 prices. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies met our inclusion criteria from 1,168 papers originally identified. Categories of interventions included anticoagulation clinics (n = 4), complex interventions (n = 4), decision support tools (n = 3) and patient-centred approaches (n = 2). Anticoagulation clinics were cost-saving compared with usual care (range for mean cost difference: £188-£691 per-patient per-year) with equivalent health outcomes. Only one economic evaluation of a complex intervention was conducted; case management was more expensive than usual care (mean cost difference: £255 per-patient per-year) and the probability of its cost-effectiveness did not exceed 70%. There was limited economic evidence surrounding decision support tools or patient-centred approaches. Targeting service interventions at high-risk groups and those with suboptimal treatment was most likely to result in cost savings. CONCLUSION: This review revealed some evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of anticoagulation clinics. However, summative conclusions are constrained by a paucity of economic evidence, a lack of direct comparisons between interventions, and study heterogeneity in terms of intervention, comparator and study year. Further research is urgently needed to inform commissioning and service development. Data from this review can inform future economic evaluations of anticoagulation service interventions.

Prevalence, trends, and outcomes of atrial fibrillation in hospitalized patients with metastatic cancer: findings from a national sample.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiological evidence regarding the link between cancer and atrial fibrillation (AF) are limited and outcomes of metastatic cancer comorbid with AF need to be elucidated. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the prevalence, temporal trends, and outcomes of AF in hospitalized metastatic cancer patients. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was used to identify adult patients with metastatic tumors from 2003 to 2014. We analyzed the trends in AF prevalence, in-hospital mortality, total cost, length of stay (LOS), and comorbidities pertaining to metastatic cancer. Multivariable-adjusted models were used to evaluate the association of AF with clinical factors, in-hospital mortality, total cost, and LOS. RESULTS: Among 2,478,598 patients with metastatic cancer, 8.74% (216,737) were diagnosed with AF. The proportion of comorbid AF increased from 8.28% in 2003 to 10.06% in 2014 (p < 0.0001). Older age, white race, male, Medicare, higher income, larger hospital bed size, and urban teaching hospital were associated with higher AF occurrence. Among primary tumor sites, lung cancer experienced the highest odds of AF compared to other cancers. Patients with metastasis to lymph node and respiratory organ had higher odds of AF. In metastatic cancer, AF was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (odds ratio: 1.48; 95% confidence interval: 1.43-1.54), 18% longer LOS, and 19% higher cost. CONCLUSIONS: AF prevalence in metastatic cancer continues to increase from 2003 to 2014. AF is linked to poorer prognosis and higher healthcare resource utilization. As the population ages, optimal preventive and treatment management strategies are needed for metastatic cancer comorbid with AF.

Cost-Utility of Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure: An Economic Evaluation.

Background Recent trials comparing catheter ablation to medical therapy in patients with heart failure (HF) with symptomatic atrial fibrillation despite first-line management have demonstrated a reduction in adverse outcomes. We performed an economic evaluation to estimate the cost-utility of catheter ablation as second line therapy in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Methods and Results A Markov model with health states of alive, dead, and alive with amiodarone toxicity was constructed, using the perspective of the Canadian healthcare payer. Patients in the alive states were at risk of HF and non-HF hospitalizations. Parameters were obtained from randomized trials and Alberta health system data for costs and outcomes. A lifetime time horizon was adopted, with discounting at 3.0% annually. Probabilistic and 1-way sensitivity analyses were performed. Costs are reported in 2018 Canadian dollars. A patient treated with catheter ablation experienced lifetime costs of $64 960 and 5.63 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), compared with $49 865 and 5.18 QALYs for medical treatment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $35 360/QALY (95% CI, $21 518-77 419), with a 90% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000/QALY. A minimum mortality reduction of 28%, or a minimum duration of benefit of >1 to 2 years was required for catheter ablation to be attractive at this threshold. Conclusions Catheter ablation is likely to be cost-effective as a second line intervention for patients with HF with symptomatic atrial fibrillation, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $35 360/QALY, as long as over half of the relative mortality benefit observed in extant trials is borne out in future studies.

Cost Conversations About Anticoagulation Between Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Their Clinicians: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: How patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and their clinicians consider cost in forming care plans remains unknown. Objective: To identify factors that inform conversations regarding costs of anticoagulants for treatment of AF between patients and clinicians and outcomes associated with these conversations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study of recorded encounters and participant surveys at 5 US medical centers (including academic, community, and safety-net centers) from the SDM4AFib randomized trial compared standard AF care with and without use of a shared decision-making (SDM) tool. Included patients were considering anticoagulation treatment and were recruited by their clinicians between January 30, 2017, and June 27, 2019. Data were analyzed between August and November 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: The incidence of and factors associated with cost conversations, and the association of cost conversations with patients' consideration of treatment cost burden and their choice of anticoagulation. Results: A total of 830 encounters (out of 922 enrolled participants) were recorded. Patients' mean (SD) age was 71.0 (10.4) years; 511 patients (61.6%) were men, 704 (86.0%) were White, 303 (40.9%) earned between $40 000 and $99 999 in annual income, and 657 (79.2%) were receiving anticoagulants. Clinicians' mean (SD) age was 44.8 (13.2) years; 75 clinicians (53.2%) were men, and 111 (76%) practiced as physicians, with approximately half (69 [48.9%]) specializing in either internal medicine or cardiology. Cost conversations occurred in 639 encounters (77.0%) and were more likely in the SDM arm (378 [90%] vs 261 [64%]; OR, 9.69; 95% CI, 5.77-16.29). In multivariable analysis, cost conversations were more likely to occur with female clinicians (66 [47%]; OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.21-6.71); consultants vs in-training clinicians (113 [75%]; OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.4-11.1); clinicians practicing family medicine (24 [16%]; OR, 12.12; 95% CI, 2.75-53.38]), internal medicine (35 [23%]; OR, 3.82; 95% CI, 1.25-11.70), or other clinicians (21 [14%]; OR, 4.90; 95% CI, 1.32-18.16) when compared with cardiologists; and for patients with an annual household income between $40 000 and $99 999 (249 [82.2%]; OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.05-3.29) compared with income below $40 000 or above $99 999. More patients who had cost conversations reported cost as a factor in their decision (244 [89.1%] vs 327 [69.0%]; OR 3.66; 95% CI, 2.43-5.50), but cost conversations were not associated with the choice of anticoagulation agent. Conclusions and Relevance: Cost conversations were common, particularly for middle-income patients and with female and consultant-level primary care clinicians, as well as in encounters using an SDM tool; they were associated with patients' consideration of treatment cost burden but not final treatment choice. With increasing costs of care passed on to patients, these findings can inform efforts to promote cost conversations in practice. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02905032.

Outcomes and Resource Utilization of Atrial Fibrillation Hospitalizations With Type 2 Myocardial Infarction.

Scarce data exist on the prognostic impact of type 2 myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with AF. The Nationwide Readmission Database 2018 was queried for primary AF hospitalizations with and without type 2 MI. Complex samples multivariable logistic and linear regression models were used to determine the association between type 2 MI and outcomes (in-hospital mortality, index length of stay [LOS], hospital costs, discharge to nursing facility, and 30-day all-cause readmissions). Of 382,896 weighted primary AF hospitalizations included in this study, 7,375 (1.9%) had type 2 MI. AF with type 2 MI is associated with significantly higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR [aOR] 1.76; 95% CI 1.30 to 2.38), LOS (adjusted parameter estimate [aPE] 0.48; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.62), hospital costs (aPE 1307.75; 95% CI 986.05 to 1647.44), discharges to nursing facility (aOR 1.38; 95% CI 1.24 to 1.54), and 30-day all-cause readmissions (adjusted hazard ratio 1.17; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.27) compared to AF without type 2 MI. Heart failure, chronic kidney disease, neurologic disorders, and age (per year) were identified as independent predictors of mortality among AF patients with type 2 MI. In conclusion, type 2 MI in the setting of AF hospitalization is associated with high in-hospital mortality and increased resource utilization.

National Trends in the Burden of Atrial Fibrillation During Hospital Admissions for Heart Failure.

Background Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) frequently coexist and may be associated with worse HF outcomes, but there is limited contemporary evidence describing their combined prevalence. We examined current trends in AF among hospitalizations for HF with preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction or HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the United States, including outcomes and costs. Methods and Results Using the National Inpatient Sample, we identified 10 392 189 hospitalizations for HF between 2008 and 2017, including 4 250 698 with comorbid AF (40.9%). HF hospitalizations with AF involved patients who were older (average age, 76.9 versus 68.8 years) and more likely White individuals (77.8% versus 59.1%; P<0.001 for both). HF with preserved ejection fraction hospitalizations had more comorbid AF than HF with reduced ejection fraction (44.9% versus 40.8%). Over time, the proportion of comorbid AF increased from 35.4% in 2008 to 45.4% in 2017, and patients were younger, more commonly men, and Black or Hispanic individuals. Comorbid hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and vascular disease all increased over time. HF hospitalizations with AF had higher in-hospital mortality than those without AF (3.6% versus 2.6%); mortality decreased over time for all HF (from 3.6% to 3.4%) but increased for HF with reduced ejection fraction (from 3.0% to 3.7%; P<0.001 for all). Median hospital charges were higher for HF admissions with AF and increased 40% over time (from $22 204 to $31 145; P<0.001). Conclusions AF is increasingly common among hospitalizations for HF and is associated with higher costs and in-hospital mortality. Over time, patients with HF and AF were younger, less likely to be White individuals, and had more comorbidities; in-hospital mortality decreased. Future research will need to address unique aspects of changing patient demographics and rising costs.

US Antiarrhythmic Drug Treatment for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: An Insurance Claims-Based Report.

Background Current American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society guidelines and European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) for maintenance of sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation. We assessed the concordance between healthcare provider real-world practice and current guidelines with respect to first-line AAD rhythm management. Methods and Results Administrative claims data from the deidentified Optum Clinformatics Data Mart database were used. Patients were included if they were initiated on an AAD in 2015 to 2016, had 1 year of continuous data availability before their first AAD pharmacy claim, and had a diagnosis for atrial fibrillation within that period. Concordance was assessed by comparing the AAD initiated by the healthcare provider against guideline recommendations for first-line treatment, given the presence of heart failure, coronary artery disease, both, or neither (as determined by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and Tenth Revision [ICD-9 and ICD-10] codes). Concordance was also assessed by provider type using Medicare taxonomy codes. For the 15 445 patients included, 51% of healthcare providers initiated AAD treatments with amiodarone, 18% flecainide, 15% sotalol, 8% dronedarone, 5% propafenone, and 2% dofetilide. The overall rate of guideline concordance was 61%, with differences by provider type: 67% for electrophysiologists, 61% for cardiologists, and 60% for others (internal medicine, etc). Conclusions There continues to be a sizable gap in concordance between practice and guidelines in first-line rhythm management of patients with atrial fibrillation. Further research is needed to identify possible explanations for non-guideline-recommended use of AADs, in addition to enhanced AAD educational strategies for practitioners.

Clinical and Economic Outcomes Among Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients With Coronary Artery Disease and/or Peripheral Artery Disease.

To address literature gaps on treatment with real-world evidence, this study compared effectiveness, safety, and cost outcomes in NVAF patients with coronary or peripheral artery disease (CAD, PAD) prescribed apixaban versus other oral anticoagulants. NVAF patients aged ≥65 years co-diagnosed with CAD/PAD initiating warfarin, apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban were selected from the US Medicare population (January 1, 2013 to September 30, 2015). Propensity score matching was used to match apixaban versus warfarin, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban cohorts. Cox models were used to evaluate the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (SE), major bleeding (MB), all-cause mortality, and a composite of stroke/myocardial infarction/all-cause mortality. Generalized linear and two-part models were used to compare stroke/SE, MB, and all-cause costs between cohorts. A total of 33,269 warfarin-apixaban, 9,335 dabigatran-apixaban, and 33,633 rivaroxaban-apixaban pairs were identified after matching. Compared with apixaban, stroke/SE risk was higher in warfarin (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.61 to 2.31), dabigatran (HR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.18 to 2.43), and rivaroxaban (HR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.51) patients. MB risk was higher in warfarin (HR: 1.67; 95% CI: 1.52 to 1.83), dabigatran (HR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.13 to 1.68), and rivaroxaban (HR: 1.87; 95% CI: 1.71 to 2.05) patients vs apixaban. Stroke/SE- and MB-related medical costs per-patient per-month were higher in warfarin, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban patients versus apixaban. Total all-cause health care costs were higher in warfarin and rivaroxaban patients compared with apixaban patients. In conclusion, compared with apixaban, patients on dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin had a higher risk of stroke/SE, MB, and event-related costs.

Is Screening for Atrial Fibrillation and Its Risk Factors Useful and Cost-Effective?

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major, preventable cause of stroke, whose prevalence is increasing with the aging of the population. There are safe and effective anticoagulation therapies to prevent stroke and new technologies that can identify AF in asymptomatic individuals. Ongoing research will determine if AF screening is cost-effective and will define the best screening strategies. The effectiveness of AF screening can be enhanced by simultaneously screening for the cardiovascular conditions that predispose to the development and progression of AF and its complications. Future studies evaluating an integrated screening program on outcomes, health care utilization, and cost are needed.

Atrial Fibrillation: Pathogenesis, Predisposing Factors, and Genetics.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most frequent arrhythmia managed in clinical practice, and it is linked to an increased risk of death, stroke, and peripheral embolism. The Global Burden of Disease shows that the estimated prevalence of AF is up to 33.5 million patients. So far, successful therapeutic techniques have been implemented, with a high health-care cost burden. As a result, identifying modifiable risk factors for AF and suitable preventive measures may play a significant role in enhancing community health and lowering health-care system expenditures. Several mechanisms, including electrical and structural remodeling of atrial tissue, have been proposed to contribute to the development of AF. This review article discusses the predisposing factors in AF including the different pathogenic mechanisms, sedentary lifestyle, and dietary habits, as well as the potential genetic burden.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of apixaban compared to other direct oral anticoagulants for prevention of stroke in Austrian atrial fibrillation patients.

OBJECTIVES: Several direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been approved by the European Medicines Agency since 2008. The aim of the present cost-effectiveness-analysis was to analyze apixaban compared to other DOACs and vitamin K antagonists (warfarin) in Austria. METHODS: A cost-utility-model was developed to simulate lifetime-costs and quality-adjusted-life-years of DOACs and warfarin, based on a published Markov-Model and 23 randomized trials with 94,656 atrial-fibrillation (AF) patients. Each year, a patient has a probability of suffering a clinically relevant (extracranial) bleed, an intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), an ischemic stroke or a myocardial infarction (MI), remaining healthy, or deceasing. Direct-costs (2018€) were derived from published sources from the payer's perspective. RESULTS: In the base-case, warfarin had the lowest cost of 12,968 € (95%-CI±593 €) followed by apixaban (15,269 €±661 €), edoxaban (15,534 €±641 €), dabigatran (15,687 €±667 €), and rivaroxaban (17,522 €±764 €). Apixaban had the highest quality-adjusted-life-years estimate at 5.45 (SD, 0.06). In a Monte-Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis, apixaban was cost-effective vs. edoxaban, dabigatran, warfarin, and rivaroxaban in 85.6%, 79.0%, 76.4%, and 61.2% of the simulations, respectively. CONCLUSION: In patients with AF and an increased risk of stroke, prophylaxis with apixaban was highly cost-effective from the perspective of the Austrian health-care system.

Reducing the cost of managing patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting.

Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have an increased risk of both ischemic events and bleeding complications resulting from antithrombotic therapy. These events are particularly common in patients with a concomitant indication for oral anticoagulation, such as those with atrial fibrillation, and are associated with a substantial healthcare resource burden. Advances in procedural aspects of PCI have led to marked improvements in outcomes and a consequent reduction in the costs resulting from PCI-associated complications. Furthermore, recent randomized clinical trials have investigated the optimal antithrombotic strategy in the specific case of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI, leading to a shift toward the tailoring of antithrombotic therapy according to the patient's individual stroke and bleeding risks. Here we review these recent advances, with a particular focus on the improvements in antithrombotic strategies offered by the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants.

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.

Advances in the management of atrial fibrillation with a special focus on non-pharmacological approaches to prevent thromboembolism: a review of current recommendations.

Atrial fibrillation (AFIB) is the most common heart rhythm abnormality and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. While the treatment of AFIB involves strategies of rate with or without rhythm control, it is also essential to strategize appropriate therapies to prevent thromboembolic complications arising from AFIB. Previously, anticoagulation was the main treatment option which exposed patients to higher than usual risk of bleeding. However, with the advent of new technology, novel therapeutic options aimed at surgical or percutaneous exclusion or occlusion of the left atrial appendage in preventing thromboembolic complications from AFIB have evolved. This review evaluates recent advances and therapeutic options in treating AFIB with a special focus on both surgical and percutaneous interventions which can reduce and/or eliminate thromboembolic complications of AFIB.

Underuse of oral anticoagulants in privately insured patients with atrial fibrillation: A population being targeted by the IMplementation of a randomized controlled trial to imProve treatment with oral AntiCoagulanTs in patients with Atrial Fibrillation (IMPACT-AFib).

BACKGROUND: Many studies showing underuse of oral anticoagulants (OACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) predated the advent of the non-vitamin K antagonist OACs. We retrospectively examined use of OACs in a large commercially insured population. METHODS: Administrative claims data from 4 research partners participating in FDA-Catalyst, a program of the Sentinel Initiative, were queried in September 2017. Patients were included if they were ≥30 years old with ≥365 days of medical/pharmacy coverage, and had ≥2 diagnosis codes for AF, a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2, absence of contraindications to OAC use, and no evidence of OAC use in the 365 days before the index AF diagnosis. The main outcome measures of the current analysis were rates of OAC use in the prior 12 months of cohort identification and factors associated with non-use. RESULTS: A total of 197,806 AF patients met the eligibility criteria prior to assessment of OAC treatment. Of these, 179,580 (91%) patients were ≥65 years old and 73,286 (37%) patients were ≥80 years old. Half of the patients (98,903) were randomized to the early intervention arm in the IMPACT-AFib trial and constitute the cohort for this analysis. Of these, 32,295 (33%) had no evidence of OAC use in the prior 12 months. Compared with patients with evidence of OAC use in the prior 12 months, patients without OAC use were more likely to be ≥80 years old, women, and have a history of anemia (51% vs 47%) and less likely to have diabetes (41% vs 44%), history of stroke or TIA (15% vs 19%), and history of heart failure (39% vs 48%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a high risk of stroke, one-third of privately insured patients with AF and no obvious contraindications to an OAC were not treated with an OAC. There is an unmet need for evidence-based interventions that could lead to greater use of OACs in patients with AF at risk for stroke.