Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous patent foramen ovale closure as secondary stroke prevention.

OBJECTIVE: Compared to medical therapy alone, percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) further reduces risk of recurrent ischemic strokes in carefully selected young to middle-aged patients with a recent cryptogenic ischemic stroke. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this therapy in the context of the United Kingdom (UK) healthcare system. METHODS: A Markov cohort model consisting of four health states (Stable after index stroke, Post-Minor Recurrent Stroke, Post-Moderate Recurrent Stroke, and Death) was developed to simulate the economic outcomes of device-based PFO closure compared to medical therapy. Recurrent stroke event rates were extracted from a randomized clinical trial (RESPECT) with a median of 5.9-year follow-up. Health utilities and costs were obtained from published sources. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to assess robustness. The model was discounted at 3.5% and reported in 2016 Pounds Sterling. RESULTS: Compared with medical therapy alone and using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £20,000, PFO closure reached cost-effectiveness at 4.2 years. Cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) at 4, 10, and 20 years were £20,951, £6,887, and £2,158, respectively. PFO closure was cost-effective for 89% of PSA iterations at year 10. Sensitivity analyses showed that the model was robust. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the UK healthcare system perspective, percutaneous PFO closure in cryptogenic ischemic stroke patients is a cost-effective stroke prevention strategy compared to medical therapy alone. Its cost-effectiveness was driven by substantial reduction in recurrent strokes and patients' improved health-related quality-of-life.

Minimizing ventricular pacing to reduce atrial fibrillation in sinus-node disease.

BACKGROUND: Conventional dual-chamber pacing maintains atrioventricular synchrony but results in high percentages of ventricular pacing, which causes ventricular desynchronization and has been linked to an increased risk of atrial fibrillation in patients with sinus-node disease. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1065 patients with sinus-node disease, intact atrioventricular conduction, and a normal QRS interval to receive conventional dual-chamber pacing (535 patients) or dual-chamber minimal ventricular pacing with the use of new pacemaker features designed to promote atrioventricular conduction, preserve ventricular conduction, and prevent ventricular desynchronization (530 patients). The primary end point was time to persistent atrial fibrillation. RESULTS: The mean (+/-SD) follow-up period was 1.7+/-1.0 years when the trial was stopped because it had met the primary end point. The median percentage of ventricular beats that were paced was lower in dual-chamber minimal ventricular pacing than in conventional dual-chamber pacing (9.1% vs. 99.0%, P<0.001), whereas the percentage of atrial beats that were paced was similar in the two groups (71.4% vs. 70.4%, P=0.96). Persistent atrial fibrillation developed in 110 patients, 68 (12.7%) in the group assigned to conventional dual-chamber pacing and 42 (7.9%) in the group assigned to dual-chamber minimal ventricular pacing. The hazard ratio for development of persistent atrial fibrillation in patients with dual-chamber minimal ventricular pacing as compared with those with conventional dual-chamber pacing was 0.60 (95% confidence interval, 0.41 to 0.88; P=0.009), indicating a 40% reduction in relative risk. The absolute reduction in risk was 4.8%. The mortality rate was similar in the two groups (4.9% in the group receiving dual-chamber minimal ventricular pacing vs. 5.4% in the group receiving conventional dual-chamber pacing, P=0.54). CONCLUSIONS: Dual-chamber minimal ventricular pacing, as compared with conventional dual-chamber pacing, prevents ventricular desynchronization and moderately reduces the risk of persistent atrial fibrillation in patients with sinus-node disease. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00284830 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).