ArticleAmerican heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice2022
A cost comparison of atrial fibrillation monitoring strategies after embolic stroke of undetermined source.
Article in American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Reimagining Cryptogenic Stroke Care: Collaborative Care and Inpatient Insertable Cardiac Monitors for Detection of Atrial Fibrillation.Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2024Article
- Review
- A Patient-Centered Approach to Cardiac Monitoring After Cryptogenic Stroke: A Review.Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) · 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
19 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Detection of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) is challenging due to its paroxysmal nature. We sought to assess AF detection with an insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) and to perform cost analysis for various AF monitoring strategies post-ESUS We applied this cost analysis modeling to recently published Stroke AF and Per Diem trials. Methods: Retrospective chart review was performed in consecutive hospitalized patients with ESUS who had ICM placed prior to discharge. Utilizing rate of ICM-detected AF and Medicare average payments, we modeled 30-day per-patient diagnostic costs of Immediate ICM insertion prior to discharge versus using a wearable monitor followed by ICM in patients with ESUS, from Medicare and patient out-of-pocket perspectives. Similar modeling strategy and cost analysis was applied to the Stroke AF and Per Diem trials. Results: In 192 ESUS patients, AF detection increased with length of monitoring: 7.3 % at 14 days, 9.4 % at 30 days, and 17.2 % after a median ~ 6 months (189 days). Cost modeling predicted that immediate ICM leads to $3683-$4070 lower Medicare payments per-patient and $1425-$1503 lower patient out-of-pocket costs compared to Wearable-to-ICM strategies. Using similar modeling in the PER DIEM and STROKE AF trials, the additive costs of the 30-day ELR to ICM strategy ranged from $3786-$3946 from a payer perspective and $1472-$1503 from a patient out-of-pocket perspective. Conclusions: Use of ICM immediately after ESUS is cost-saving compared to Wearable-to-ICM strategies, due to the cost and low diagnostic yield of short-term wearable cardiac monitoring.
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.