Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29739915›Full record

ArticleStroke2018

Cost-Effectiveness of Left Atrial Appendage Closure With the WATCHMAN Device Compared With Warfarin or Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants for Secondary Prevention in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation.

Vivek Y Reddy, Ronald L Akehurst, Stacey L Amorosi, Meghan B Gavaghan, Deanna S Hertz, David R Holmes

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Stroke, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Watchman outcomes comparing post-implantation anticoagulation with warfarin versus direct oral anticoagulants.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: A View From the UK.Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review · 2020
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Vivek Y ReddyFrom the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY (V.Y.R.) Vivek.Reddy@mountsinai.org.
Ronald L AkehurstBresMed, Sheffield, United Kingdom (R.L.A.).
Stacey L AmorosiHealth Economics Center of Excellence, Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA (S.L.A.).
Meghan B GavaghanMarket Access, GfK, Waltham, MA (M.B.G., D.S.H.).
Deanna S HertzMarket Access, GfK, Waltham, MA (M.B.G., D.S.H.).
David R HolmesCardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (D.R.H.).
GfK (United States) · USBoston Scientific (United States) · USMount Sinai Medical Center · USUniversity of Sheffield · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeOnce a patient with atrial fibrillation experiences an embolic event, the risk of a recurrent event increases 2.6-fold. New treatments have emerged as viable treatment alternatives to warfarin for stroke risk reduction in secondary prevention populations. This analysis sought to assess the cost-effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) compared with warfarin and the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants dabigatran 150 mg, apixaban and rivaroxaban in the prevention of stroke in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients with a prior stroke or transient ischemic attack.

methodsA Markov model was constructed using data from the secondary prevention subgroup analyses of the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant and LAAC pivotal trials. Costs were from 2016 US Medicare reimbursement rates and the literature. The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from a US Medicare perspective over a lifetime (20 years) horizon. The model was populated with a cohort of 10 000 patients aged 70 years with a CHA

resultsLAAC achieved cost-effectiveness relative to dabigatran at year 5 and warfarin and apixaban at year 6. At 10 years, LAAC had more quality-adjusted life years (4.986 versus 4.769, 4.869, 4.888, and 4.810) and lower costs ($42 616 versus $53 770, $58 774, $55 656, and $58 655) than warfarin, dabigatran, apixaban, and rivaroxaban, respectively, making LAAC the dominant (more effective and less costly) stroke risk reduction strategy. LAAC remained the dominant strategy over the lifetime analysis.

conclusionsUpfront procedure costs initially make LAAC higher cost than warfarin and the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants, but within 10 years, LAAC delivers more quality-adjusted life years and has lower total costs, making LAAC the most cost-effective treatment strategy for secondary prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAgedAged, 80 and overAnticoagulantsAtrial AppendageAtrial FibrillationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQuality-Adjusted Life YearsSecondary PreventionStrokeTreatment OutcomeWarfarinAnticoagulantsWarfarinapixabanatrial fibrillationcost-effectiveness analysisdabigatranleft atrial appendage closurewarfarin

Identifiers

PMID29739915
PMCPMC5976225
OpenAlexW2802765211

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.