Left atrial appendage closure with the watchman device reduces atrial fibrillation management costs

Catheter based left atrial appendage closure in-hospital outcomes in Germany from 2016 to 2020

BACKGROUND

New and refined catheter based left atrial appendage (LAA) closure devices have been introduced in the past decade. The procedure can be performed using either an endocardial occlusion device or an epicardial loop stitch. We aimed to analyzed recent procedural safety.

METHODS

Catheter based LAA closures were identified in a complete nationwide German dataset via ICD and OPS codes from 2016 to 2020.

RESULTS

From 2016 to 2020, 28,039 endocardial and 213 epicardial occlusions were performed. Numbers of endocardial procedures increased from 5259 in 2016 to 5917 in 2020 (p = 0.020) in 387 centers with shifting of patients' characteristics towards older age (β = 0.29, p < 0.001), more heart failure (β = 1.01, p < 0.001) and renal disease (β = 0.67, p = 0.001) and without a significant trend for in-hospital safety except more bleeding (β = 0.12, p = 0.05). In-hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) or pericardial puncture were independent on center procedure numbers. The loop stitch procedure was performed in 15 centers. Patients were younger (76.17 ± 8.16 vs. 73.16 ± 8.99, p < 0.001) and had a lower comorbidity index (2.29 ± 1.93 vs. 1.92 ± 1.64, p = 0.005). Adjusted risk difference for pericardial effusion (8.04%; 95% CI 3.01-13.08%; p = 0.002) and pericardial puncture (6.60%; 95% CI 3.85-9.35%; p < 0.001) was higher for the loop stitch procedure, while risk of bleeding (- 1.85%; 95% CI - 3.01 to - 0.69%; p = 0.002), intracerebral bleeding (- 0.37%; 95% CI - 0.59 to - 0.15%; p = 0.001) and shock (- 1.41%; 95% CI - 2.44 to - 0.39%; p = 0.007) was lower. No significant difference was observed for in-hospital MACCE.

CONCLUSIONS

Endocardial occlusion was the major catheter based LAA closure procedure in Germany without improvements in in-hospital safety from 2016 to 2020. In-hospital MACCE was independent on endocardial LAAC center volumes. Conclusions on the comparison between the two procedure types must be made cautious as the LAA loop stitch occlusion was utilized limited in a minor number of centers.

Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure reduces cost of care independent of the institutional cumulative caseload in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation

Background

Data on the impact of the cumulative percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) caseload on cardiovascular outpatient and hospitalisation costs are limited.

Methods

The present single-institution analysis includes patients treated consecutively from the beginning of our LAAC experience in January 2012 until December 2016. Pre- and post-LAAC costs for hospitalisation and ambulatory visits were included.

Results

A total of 676 patients underwent percutaneous LAAC (using the Watchman device): 49 (2012), 78 (2013), 211 (2014), 210 (2015), and 129 (2016). LAAC procedural costs were stable over the years (overall median €9639; 2012: €9630; 2013: €10,003; 2014: €9841; 2015: €9394; 2016: €9530; p = 0.8) and there was no correlation between cumulative caseload and procedural costs (p = 0.9). Although annualised cardiovascular management costs after LAAC were lower than before LAAC (median difference between pre-LAAC and post-LAAC yearly costs: €727; 2012: €235; 2013: €1187; 2014: €716; 2015: €527; 2016: €1052; p = 0.5 among years analysed) from the beginning of the cumulative procedural experience, a significant reduction in costs was observed only from 2014 onwards. Institutional cumulative LAAC caseload and year of procedure were not related to the amount of reduction in the costs for cardiovascular care.

Conclusion

LAAC led to cost-of-care savings from the beginning of our institutional procedural experience.

Actual management costs of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation treated with percutaneous left atrial appendage closure or oral anticoagulation

AIMS

Comparing actual management costs in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) treated with percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) or OAC only.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients undergoing percutaneous LAAC and AF patients treated with OAC only were matched for gender, age, and diagnosis related groups (DRG) clinical complexity level (CCL). Costs for cardiovascular outpatient clinic visits and hospitalizations were derived from the actual reimbursement records. Between 1/2012 and 12/2016, 8478 patients were referred: 7801 (92%) managed with OAC and 677 (8%) with percutaneous LAAC. Matching resulted in 558 patients (279 per group) for final analysis. Age was 74.9 ± 7.5 years, 244 were female (43.7%), and DRG CCL was 1.8 ± 1.1. Annualized management cost before percutaneous LAAC was € 3110 (IQR: € 1281-8127). After 4.5 ± 1.4 years follow-up, annualized management cost was € 1297 (IQR: € 607-2735) in OAC patients and € 1013 (IQR: € 0-4770) in patients after percutaneous LAAC (p = 0.003). Percutaneous LAAC was the strongest independent determinant to reduce follow-up costs (B = -0.8; CI: -1.09 ̶̶̶̶̶ -0.6; p < 0.0001). Estimated 3-year survival was 92% in percutaneous LAAC and 90% in OAC patients (p = 0.7).

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous LAAC significantly reduces management costs. Management costs are significantly higher for patients treated with only OAC compared to patients after percutaneous LAAC. In spite of their complex comorbid profile, percutaneous LAAC patients show a follow-up survival rate similar to patients solely treated with OAC. Future studies are necessary to investigate the potential net economic and clinical benefit of percutaneous LAAC in patients treated with OAC only.