ArticleCirculation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology2016
Cost-Effectiveness of Percutaneous Closure of the Left Atrial Appendage in Atrial Fibrillation Based on Results From PROTECT AF Versus PREVAIL.
Article in Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost Effectiveness of Strategies to Manage Atrial Fibrillation in Middle- and High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2023Pooled it
- Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion in the prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review.Heart failure reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device With Delivery System: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2017Pooled it
- Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Versus Direct Oral Anticoagulation in Atrial Fibrillation Patients at Very High Risk of Stroke: A Budget Impact Analysis in Italy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Health economic evaluation of left atrial appendage closure in patients with atrial fibrillation and at high risk for stroke and bleeding: a study protocol.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review appraising the methodological quality.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2023Article
- Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure reduces cost of care independent of the institutional cumulative caseload in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2022Article
- Review
- Left atrial appendage closure with the watchman device reduces atrial fibrillation management costs.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2022Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease and Acute Coronary Syndromes in the US Medicare Program.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Article
- Observational
- Cost-Effectiveness of Left Atrial Appendage Closure for Stroke Reduction in Atrial Fibrillation: Analysis of Pooled, 5-Year, Long-Term Data.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRandomized trials of left atrial appendage (LAA) closure with the Watchman device have shown varying results, and its cost effectiveness compared with anticoagulation has not been evaluated using all available contemporary trial data. METHODS AND
resultsWe used a Markov decision model to estimate lifetime quality-adjusted survival, costs, and cost effectiveness of LAA closure with Watchman, compared directly with warfarin and indirectly with dabigatran, using data from the long-term (mean 3.8 year) follow-up of Percutaneous Closure of the Left Atrial Appendage Versus Warfarin Therapy for Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation (PROTECT AF) and Prospective Randomized Evaluation of the Watchman LAA Closure Device in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation (PREVAIL) randomized trials. Using data from PROTECT AF, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios compared with warfarin and dabigatran were $20 486 and $23 422 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively. Using data from PREVAIL, LAA closure was dominated by warfarin and dabigatran, meaning that it was less effective (8.44, 8.54, and 8.59 quality-adjusted life years, respectively) and more costly. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per quality-adjusted life year, LAA closure was cost effective 90% and 9% of the time under PROTECT AF and PREVAIL assumptions, respectively. These results were sensitive to the rates of ischemic stroke and intracranial hemorrhage for LAA closure and medical anticoagulation.
conclusionsUsing data from the PROTECT AF trial, LAA closure with the Watchman device was cost effective; using PREVAIL trial data, Watchman was more costly and less effective than warfarin and dabigatran. PROTECT AF enrolled more patients and has substantially longer follow-up time, allowing greater statistical certainty with the cost-effectiveness results. However, longer-term trial results and postmarketing surveillance of major adverse events will be vital to determining the value of the Watchman in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.