ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2026
Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Cardioform versus Amplatzer and Medical Therapy Alone for Patent Foramen Ovale Closure: A UK Payer Perspective.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of two patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure devices and medical management for the prevention of recurrent PFO-associated strokes in the UK. Patients and Methods: We used a Markov model to simulate 1000 individuals with a history of PFO-associated stroke over a five-year time horizon. Treatment options included GORE Results: GSO Device was estimated to be cost-saving and generate 24.66 additional QALYs versus ATO Device (dominant ICER) over five years and in a cohort of 1000 patients. Compared with Medical Therapy Alone, it provided 406.66 additional QALYs at an ICER of £14,343/QALY. It also prevented 27.86 and 67.05 strokes versus ATO Device and Medical Therapy Alone, respectively. Conclusion: The use of GSO Device is a cost-effective option for the prevention of secondary PFO-associated strokes, with favorable estimated clinical outcomes. Future studies providing direct comparative evidence between GSO and ATO could further inform the relative clinical and cost-effectiveness of available PFO closure devices.
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.