ArticleBMJ open2023
Estimating the cost impact of atrial fibrillation using a prospective cohort study and population-based controls.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Monitoring Atrial Fibrillation Using Wearable Digital Technologies: The Emerging Role of Smartwatches.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Multidisciplinary Atrial Fibrillation Clinics: A Model for Comprehensive Management.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Evolution in electrophysiology 100 years after Einthoven: translational and computational innovations in rhythm control of atrial fibrillation.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsAtrial fibrillation (AF) costs are expected to be substantial, but cost comparisons with the general population are scarce. Using data from the prospective Swiss-AF cohort study and population-based controls, we estimated the impact of AF on direct healthcare costs from the Swiss statutory health insurance perspective.
methodsSwiss-AF patients, enrolled from 2014 to 2017, had documented, prevalent AF. We analysed 5 years of follow-up, where clinical data, and health insurance claims in 42% of the patients were collected on a yearly basis. Controls from a health insurance claims database were matched for demographics and region. The cost impact of AF was estimated using five different methods: (1) ordinary least square regression (OLS), (2) OLS-based two-part modelling, (3) generalised linear model-based two-part modelling, (4) 1:1 nearest neighbour propensity score matching and (5) a cost adjudication algorithm using Swiss-AF data non-comparatively and considering clinical data. Cost of illness at the Swiss national level was modelled using obtained cost estimates, prevalence from the Global Burden of Disease Project, and Swiss population data.
resultsThe 1024 Swiss-AF patients with available claims data were compared with 16 556 controls without known AF. AF patients accrued CHF5600 (EUR5091) of AF-related direct healthcare costs per year, in addition to non-AF-related healthcare costs of CHF11100 (EUR10 091) per year accrued by AF patients and controls. All five methods yielded comparable results. AF-related costs at the national level were estimated to amount to 1% of Swiss healthcare expenditure.
conclusionsWe robustly found direct medical costs of AF patients were 50% higher than those of population-based controls. Such information on the incremental cost burden of AF may support healthcare capacity planning.
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.