ArticleCerebrovascular diseases (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Digital Health-Enabled Monitoring Strategies for Atrial Fibrillation Detection after Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Implantable Loop Recorders, Wearable Devices, and Usual Care.
Article in Cerebrovascular diseases (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEmbolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) is frequently attributable to atrial fibrillation (AF), yet remains undetected when episodes are brief or asymptomatic. Digital health-enabled cardiac monitoring offers novel pathways for secondary prevention. Implantable loop recorders (ILRs) provide continuous long-term rhythm surveillance, while wearable electrocardiogram (ECG) devices offer greater accessibility but with uncertain diagnostic yield and economic value. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of ILR versus wearable AF monitoring and usual care in ESUS.
methodsA cohort-based Markov model simulated 1,000 ESUS patients (mean age 65 years) over a 10-year horizon from the German statutory health insurance perspective. Clinical inputs included AF detection rates (ILR: 15-25%; wearables: 5-10%), risk reduction in ischemic stroke with oral anticoagulation (OAC), and mortality/disability utilities. Costs (EUR 2,024, 3% discount) captured device acquisition, implantation, follow-up, stroke care, and OAC therapy. Outcomes included incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net monetary benefit at willingness-to-pay thresholds of EUR 20,000, EUR 30,000, and EUR 50,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, including expected value of perfect information (EVPI), were performed.
resultsILR yielded 0.23 additional QALYs compared with wearables at an incremental cost of EUR 2,160, resulting in a base-case ICER of EUR 9,391/QALY. In a high-risk subgroup, the ICER decreased to EUR 5,520/QALY. Probabilistic analysis demonstrated >90% probability of cost-effectiveness at EUR 30,000/QALY, with moderate EVPI. These findings align with meta-analytic evidence (RR 3.88 for AF detection; RR 0.75 for stroke reduction) and indicate that prolonged monitoring (≥12 months) maximizes yield.
conclusionDigital health-enabled ILR monitoring is likely cost-effective for AF detection after ESUS, particularly in high-risk patients. Wearables may serve as an adjunct but deliver lower value. Results support targeted ILR implementation in post-ESUS care pathways and integration into digital health-driven guideline and reimbursement frameworks.
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.