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.
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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost Effectiveness of Strategies to Manage Atrial Fibrillation in Middle- and High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2023Pooled it
- Clinical follow-up of left atrial appendage occlusion in patients with atrial fibrillation ineligible of oral anticoagulation treatment-a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2021Pooled it
- Residual flow may increase the risk of adverse events in patients received combined catheter ablation and transcatheter left atrial appendage closure for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2019Pooled 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
- Center-Related Variation in Hospitalization Cost for Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion.Structural heart : the journal of the Heart Team · 2025Article
- 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
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of left atrial appendage occlusion in patients with atrial fibrillation and contraindication to oral anticoagulation.European heart journal · 2022Article
- Comparison of Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion versus Non-Vitamin-K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulation in High-Risk Atrial Fibrillation: An Update.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2021Article
- Watchman outcomes comparing post-implantation anticoagulation with warfarin versus direct oral anticoagulants.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2021Article
- Long-term outcomes of left atrial appendage occlusion in high-risk atrial fibrillation patients: 4-year follow up data.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2021Article
- Left Atrial Appendage Closure Yields Favorable Cardio- and Cerebrovascular Outcomes in Patients With Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation and Prior Stroke.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
- Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: A View From the UK.Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review · 2020Review
- Availability of secondary prevention services after stroke in Europe: An ESO/SAFE survey of national scientific societies and stroke experts.European stroke journal · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.