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.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to determine if the rate of lead-related complications was increased with the Medtronic CapSureFix MRI™ SureScan™ 5086 MRI pacing lead (5086; Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) compared to the previous generation of Medtronic CapSureFix Novus™ 5076 pacing lead (5076). BACKGROUND: The 5086 lead is a newly introduced active-fixation pacemaker lead designed to be used conditionally in a magnetic resonance (MR) scanner. This lead has specific design changes compared to the previous generation of 5076 pacing leads. METHODS: This study was a retrospective case control study of 65 consecutive patients implanted with two 5086 leads compared to 92 consecutive control patients implanted with two 5076 leads over a 14-month period at a high-volume tertiary care hospital. RESULTS: Pericarditis, pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade, or death within 30 days of implant were seen in eight patients from the 5086 cohort and two from the 5076 cohort (odds ratio 6.3, 95% confidence interval 1.3-30.8, P = 0.02). Lead dislodgement occurred in four of the 5086 patients and in none of the 5076 patients (P < 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In a high-volume center, the incidence of pericarditis, cardiac perforation, tamponade, death, and lead dislodgement was significantly higher with the MR-conditional Medtronic 5086 lead when compared to the previous generation Medtronic 5076 lead.
