Cost-Effectiveness of Percutaneous Closure of the Left Atrial Appendage in Atrial Fibrillation Based on Results From PROTECT AF Versus PREVAIL

Embolization of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure devices: Timing, management and clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Left atrial appendage (LAA) occluder embolization is an infrequent but serious complication.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to describe timing, management and clinical outcomes of device embolization in a multi-center registry.

METHODS

Patient characteristics, imaging findings and procedure and follow-up data were collected retrospectively. Device embolizations were categorized according to 1) timing 2) management and 3) clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven centers contributed data. Device embolization occurred in 108 patients. In 70.4 % of cases, it happened within the first 24 h of the procedure. The device was purposefully left in the LA and the aorta in two (1.9 %) patients, an initial percutaneous retrieval was attempted in 81 (75.0 %) and surgery without prior percutaneous retrieval attempt was performed in 23 (21.3 %) patients. Two patients died before a retrieval attempt could be made. In 28/81 (34.6 %) patients with an initial percutaneous retrieval attempt a second, additional attempt was performed, which was associated with a high mortality (death in patients with one attempt: 2.9 % vs. second attempt: 21.4 %, p < 0.001). The primary outcome (bailout surgery, cardiogenic shock, stroke, TIA, and/or death) occurred in 47 (43.5 %) patients. Other major complications related to device embolization occurred in 21 (19.4 %) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of device embolizations after LAA closure occurs early. A percutaneous approach is often the preferred method for a first rescue attempt. Major adverse event rates, including death, are high particularly if the first retrieval attempt was unsuccessful.

CONDENSED ABSTRACT

This dedicated multicenter registry examined timing, management, and clinical outcome of device embolization. Early embolization (70.4 %) was most frequent. As a first rescue attempt, percutaneous retrieval was preferred in 75.0 %, followed by surgical removal (21.3 %). In patients with a second retrieval attempt a higher mortality (death first attempt: 2.9 % vs. death second attempt: 24.1 %, p < 0.001) was observed. Mortality (10.2 %) and the major complication rate after device embolization were high.

Cost-effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review appraising the methodological quality

BACKGROUND

The increasing global prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) has led to a growing demand for stroke prevention strategies, resulting in higher healthcare costs. High-quality economic evaluations of stroke prevention strategies can play a crucial role in maximising efficient allocation of resources. In this systematic review, we assessed the methodological quality of such economic evaluations.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases of PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Econ Lit to identify model-based economic evaluations comparing the left atrial appendage closure procedure (LAAC) and oral anticoagulants published in English since 2000. Data on study characteristics, model-based details, and analyses were collected. The methodological quality was evaluated using the modified Economic Evaluations Bias (ECOBIAS) checklist. For each of the 22 biases listed in this checklist, studies were categorised into one of four groups: low risk, partial risk, high risk due to inadequate reporting, or high risk. To gauge the overall quality of each study, we computed a composite score by assigning + 2, 0, - 1 and - 2 to each risk category, respectively.

RESULTS

In our analysis of 12 studies, majority adopted a healthcare provider or payer perspective and employed Markov Models with the number of health states varying from 6 to 16. Cost-effectiveness results varied across studies. LAAC displayed a probability exceeding 50% of being the cost-effective option in six out of nine evaluations compared to warfarin, six out of eight evaluations when compared to dabigatran, in three out of five evaluations against apixaban, and in two out of three studies compared to rivaroxaban. The methodological quality scores for individual studies ranged from 10 to - 12 out of a possible 24. Most high-risk ratings were due to inadequate reporting, which was prevalent across various biases, including those related to data identification, baseline data, treatment effects, and data incorporation. Cost measurement omission bias and inefficient comparator bias were also common.

CONCLUSIONS

While most studies concluded LAAC to be the cost-effective strategy for stroke prevention in AF, shortcomings in methodological quality raise concerns about reliability and validity of results. Future evaluations, free of these shortcomings, can yield stronger policy evidence.

Cost Effectiveness of Strategies to Manage Atrial Fibrillation in Middle- and High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) remains the most common form of cardiac arrhythmia. Management of AF aims to reduce the risk of stroke, heart failure and premature mortality via rate or rhythm control. This study aimed to review the literature on the cost effectiveness of treatment strategies to manage AF among adults living in low-, middle- and high-income countries.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (OvidSp), Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EconLit and Google Scholar for relevant studies between September 2022 and November 2022. The search strategy involved medical subject headings or related text words. Data management and selection was performed using EndNote library. The titles and abstracts were screened followed by eligibility assessment of full texts. Selection, assessment of the risk of bias within the studies, and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. The cost-effectiveness results were synthesised narratively. The analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel 365. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for each study was adjusted to 2021 USD values.

RESULTS

Fifty studies were included in the analysis after selection and risk of bias assessment. In high-income countries, apixaban was predominantly cost effective for stroke prevention in patients at low and moderate risk of stroke, while left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) was cost effective in patients at high risk of stroke. Propranolol was the cost-effective choice for rate control, while catheter ablation and the convergent procedure were cost-effective strategies in patients with paroxysmal and persistent AF, respectively. Among the anti-arrhythmic drugs, sotalol was the cost-effective strategy for rhythm control. In middle-income countries, apixaban was the cost-effective choice for stroke prevention in patients at low and moderate risk of stroke while high-dose edoxaban was cost effective in patients at high risk of stroke. Radiofrequency catheter ablation was the cost-effective option in rhythm control. No data were available for low-income countries.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review has shown that there are several cost-effective strategies to manage AF in different resource settings. However, the decision to use any strategy should be guided by objective clinical and economic evidence supported by sound clinical judgement.

REGISTRATION

CRD42022360590.

Cost-effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure with Watchman for non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients in Japan

AIMS

Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has been demonstrated to be cost-saving relative to oral anticoagulants for stroke prophylaxis in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in the United States and Europe. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of LAAC with the Watchman device relative to warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for stroke risk reduction in NVAF from a Japanese public healthcare payer perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed with 70-year-old patients using a lifetime time horizon. LAAC clinical inputs were from pooled, 5-year PROTECT AF and PREVAIL trials; warfarin and DOAC inputs were from published meta-analyses. Baseline stroke and bleeding risks were from the SALUTE trial on LAAC. Cost inputs were from the Japanese Medical Data Vision database. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Over the lifetime time horizon, LAAC was less costly than warfarin (savings of JPY 1,878,335, equivalent to US $17,600) and DOACs (savings of JPY 1,198,096, equivalent to US $11,226). LAAC also provided 1.500 more incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than warfarin and 0.996 more than DOACs. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, LAAC was cost-effective relative to warfarin and DOACs in 99.98% and 99.73% of simulations, respectively. LAAC dominated (had higher cumulative QALYs and was less costly than) warfarin and DOACs in 89.94% and 83.35% of simulations, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Over a lifetime time horizon, LAAC is cost-saving relative to warfarin and DOACs for stroke risk reduction in NVAF patients in Japan and is associated with improved quality-of-life.

In Search of the Optimal Antithrombotic Regimen for Intracerebral Hemorrhage Survivors with Atrial Fibrillation

Spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) constitutes 10-15% of all strokes, and is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity. Survivors of ICH, especially those with atrial fibrillation (AF), are at risk for both recurrent hemorrhagic and ischemic cerebrovascular events. A conundrum in the field of vascular neurology, neurosurgery, and cardiology has been the decision to initiate or resume versus withhold anticoagulation in survivors of ICH with AF. To initiate anticoagulation would decrease the risk of ischemic stroke but may increase the risk of hemorrhage. To withhold anticoagulation maintains a lower risk of hemorrhage but does not decrease the risk of ischemic stroke. In this narrative review, we discuss the evidence for and against the use of antithrombotics in ICH survivors with AF, focusing on recently completed and ongoing clinical trials.

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.

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

AIMS

To report hospitalization costs of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) submitted to percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with the Watchman device.

METHODS

Pre- and post-procedural hospitalization AF-related costs were calculated using the DRG system (diagnosis-related groups) and compared.

RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2016, 677 non-valvular AF patients underwent LAAC. Median time from first cardiac hospitalization to LAAC was 5.9 years (IQR 1.6-9.1) and median follow-up after LAAC was 4.8 years (IQR 3.6-5.6). LAAC mortality was 1.3% and follow-up mortality 16.9%. Median pre-LAAC hospitalization cost was € 17,867 (IQR € 7512-35,08) and post-LAAC € 8772 (IQR € 1183-25,159) (p < 0.0001). Annualized cost pre-LAAC was 3773 € (IQR € 1644-8,493) and post-LAAC 2,001 € (IQR € 260-6913) (p < 0.0001). Follow-up survivors had significantly lower post-LAAC costs (p < 0.0001) and after a survival cut-off time of 4.6 years LAAC procedural and post-procedural hospitalization costs achieved parity with pre-LACC costs (AUC 0.64; p = 0.02). CHA2DS2-VASc score (B = 0.04; p = 0.02; 95% CI 0.006-0.08), and HAS-BLED score (B = 0.08; p = 0.004; 95% CI 0.02-0.14) were independent determinants for annualized hospitalization costs post-LAAC. At Cox-regression analysis the DRG mean clinical complexity level (CCL) was the only independent determinant for follow-up mortality (OR = 2.2; p < 0.0001; 95% CI 1.6-2.8) with a cut-off value of 2.25 to predict follow-up mortality (AUC 0.72; p < 0.0001; Spec. 70%; Sens. 70%).

CONCLUSION

Hospitalization costs pre-LAAC are consistent, and after LAAC, they are significantly reduced. Costs seem related to the patient's risk profile at the time of the procedure. With the increase in post-LAAC survival time, the procedure becomes economically more profitable.

Cost-Effectiveness of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease and Acute Coronary Syndromes in the US Medicare Program

Background Coronary revascularization provides important long-term clinical benefits to patients with high-risk presentations of coronary artery disease, including those with chronic kidney disease. The cost-effectiveness of coronary interventions in this setting is not known. Methods and Results We developed a Markov cohort simulation model to assess the cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with chronic kidney disease who were hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina. Model inputs were primarily drawn from a sample of 14 300 patients identified using the Medicare 20% sample. Survival, quality-adjusted life-years, costs, and cost-effectiveness were projected over a 20-year time horizon. Multivariable models indicated higher 30-day mortality and end-stage renal disease with both PCI and CABG, and higher stroke with CABG, relative to medical therapy. However, the model projected long-term gains of 0.72 quality-adjusted life-years (0.97 life-years) for PCI compared with medical therapy, and 0.93 quality-adjusted life-years (1.32 life-years) for CABG compared with PCI. Incorporation of long-term costs resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $65 326 per quality-adjusted life-year gained for PCI versus medical therapy, and $101 565 for CABG versus PCI. Results were robust to changes in input parameters but strongly influenced by the background costs of the population, and the time horizon. Conclusions For patients with chronic kidney disease and high-risk coronary artery disease presentations, PCI and CABG were both associated with markedly increased costs as well as gains in quality-adjusted life expectancy, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios indicating intermediate value in health economic terms.

Clinical outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion in general anaesthesia or conscious sedation: data from the prospective global Amplatzer Amulet Occluder Observational Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) using conscious sedation (CS).

BACKGROUND

Several percutaneous structural heart disease interventions are safely and efficiently performed using CS instead of general anaesthesia (GA). This concept has not been evaluated in a large multicenter cohort of patients undergoing LAAO.

METHODS

Patients from the prospective, global Amplatzer Amulet Occluder Observational Study were divided into two groups (GA vs CS). Baseline information, periprocedural and postprocedural efficacy and complications, as well as outcomes through 7 days post implant were compared.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing transesophageal-guided implants were categorised by GA (n=607, 64%) or CS (n=342, 36%) usage. Mean age was 75 years in both groups. LAAO technical success was achieved in 99% of both groups. The procedure duration (GA: 35±22 min vs CS: 27±19 min, p<0.001), total amount of contrast medium (GA: 105±81 mL vs CS: 86±66 mL, p<0.001) and fluoroscopic time (GA: 13±9 min vs CS: 12±13 min, p<0.001) were less in CS cases. Procedure-related or device-related serious adverse events during the first 7 days were numerically higher in the CS group (GA: 4.9% vs CS: 7.6%, p=0.114). Peridevice residual flow was absent or ≤5 mm 1-3 months after the procedure in 99.7% of the GA and in 100% of the CS group (p=1.000).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large global study, LAAO with the Amplatzer Amulet occluder is safe and feasible using CS. Procedure duration and total amount of contrast were less with CS than GA cases.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02447081; Results.

Cost-effectiveness of combined catheter ablation and left atrial appendage closure for symptomatic atrial fibrillation in patients with high stroke and bleeding risk

BACKGROUND

Combined catheter ablation (CA) and left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) have been proposed for management of symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with high stroke and bleeding risk. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of combined CA and LAAC compared with CA and standard oral anticoagulation (OAC) in symptomatic AF.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to assess total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio among 2 post-CA strategies: (1) standard OAC and (2) LAAC (combined CA and LAAC procedure). The base-case used a 10-year time horizon and consisted of a hypothetical cohort of patients aged 65 years with symptomatic AF, with high thrombotic (CHA₂DS₂-VASc = 3) and bleeding risk (HAS-BLED = 3), and planned for AF ablation. Values for transition probabilities, utilities, and costs were derived from the literature. Costs were converted to 2020 US dollars. Half-cycle correction was applied, and costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. Sensitivity analyses were performed for significant variables and scenario analyses for higher embolic risk.

RESULTS

In the base-case cohort of 10,000 patients followed for 10 years, total costs for the LAAC strategy were $29,027 and for OAC strategy were $27,896. The LAAC strategy was associated with 122 fewer disabling strokes and 203 fewer intracranial hemorrhages per 10,000 patients compared with the OAC strategy. The LAAC strategy had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $11,072/QALY. In sensitivity analyses, although cost-effectiveness was highly dependent on the risk of intracranial hemorrhage in the LAAC strategy and the cost of the combined procedure, LAAC was superior to OAC under the most circumstances. Scenario analyses demonstrated that the combined procedure was more cost-effective in patients with higher stroke risk.

CONCLUSIONS

In symptomatic AF patients with high stroke and bleeding risk who are planned for CA, the combined CA and LAAC procedure may be a cost-effective therapeutic option and be more beneficial to patients with CHA₂DS₂-VASc risk score ≥3.

Cost-Effectiveness of Left Atrial Appendage Closure for Stroke Reduction in Atrial Fibrillation: Analysis of Pooled, 5-Year, Long-Term Data

Background Recent publications reached conflicting conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with the Watchman device (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA) for stroke risk reduction in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). This analysis sought to assess the cost-effectiveness of LAAC relative to both warfarin and nonwarfarin oral anticoagulants (NOACs) using pooled, long-term data from the randomized PROTECT AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) and PREVAIL (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of the Watchman LAA Closure Device in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Versus Long-Term Warfarin) trials. Methods and Results A Markov model was constructed from a US payer perspective with a lifetime (20-year) horizon. LAAC clinical event rates and stroke outcomes were from pooled PROTECT AF and PREVAIL trial 5-year data. Warfarin and NOAC inputs were derived from published meta-analyses. The model was populated with a cohort of 10 000 patients, aged 70 years, at moderate stroke and bleeding risk. Sensitivity analyses were performed. LAAC was cost-effective relative to warfarin by year 7 ($48 674/quality-adjusted life-year) and dominant (more effective and less costly) by year 10. LAAC became cost-effective and dominant compared with NOACs by year 5. Over a lifetime, LAAC provided 0.60 more quality-adjusted life-years than warfarin and 0.29 more than NOACs. In sensitivity analyses, LAAC was cost-effective relative to warfarin and NOACs in 98% and 95% of simulations, respectively. Conclusions Using pooled, 5-year PROTECT AF and PREVAIL trial data, LAAC proved to be not only cost-effective, but cost saving relative to warfarin and NOACs. LAAC with the Watchman device is an economically viable stroke risk reduction strategy for patients with AF seeking an alternative to lifelong anticoagulation.

Level of Evidence in Economic Evaluations of Left Atrial Appendage Closure Devices: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the present work was to assess the level of evidence in economic evaluations of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure devices, and to test the complementarity of three different tools for assessing the quality of economic evaluations.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of articles in English or French listed in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis registry and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database. We included only economic evaluations concerning left atrial appendage closure devices. Data were extracted from articles by two authors working independently and using three analysis grids to measure the quality of economic evaluations [the British Medical Journal (BMJ) checklist, the hierarchy scale developed by Cooper et al. (J Health Serv Res Policy 10:245-50, 2005) and the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument].

RESULTS

Seven economic evaluations met our inclusion criteria. All were published between 2013 and 2016. All were cost-utility analyses, and fully complied with the BMJ checklist. According to the hierarchy scale developed by Cooper et al., the quality of data used was heterogeneous. Finally, the mean score for the seven economic studies was 90/100 with the QHES instrument.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the recent development of left atrial appendage closure devices, most economic evaluations conducted here were well-designed studies. Furthermore, different tools used to assess the quality of these studies were complementary, but none gave a global vision of the quality of economic studies.

Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device With Delivery System: A Health Technology Assessment

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation is a common cardiac arrhythmia, and 15% to 20% of those who have experienced stroke have atrial fibrillation. Treatment options to prevent stroke in people with atrial fibrillation include pharmacological agents such as novel oral anticoagulants or nonpharmacological devices such as the left atrial appendage closure device with delivery system (LAAC device). The objectives of this health technology assessment were to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the LAAC device versus novel oral anticoagulants in patients without contraindications to oral anticoagulants and versus antiplatelet agents in patients with contraindications to oral anticoagulants.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We also conducted an economic literature review, economic evaluation, and budget impact analysis to assess the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the LAAC device compared with novel oral anticoagulants and oral antiplatelet agents (e.g., aspirin). We also spoke with patients to better understand their preferences, perspectives, and values.

RESULTS

Seven randomized controlled studies met the inclusion criteria for indirect comparison. Five studies assessed the effectiveness of novel oral anticoagulants versus warfarin, and two studies compared the LAAC device with warfarin. No studies were identified that compared the LAAC device with aspirin in patients in whom oral anticoagulants were contraindicated. Using the random effects model, we found that the LAAC device was comparable to novel oral anticoagulants in reducing stroke (odds ratio [OR] 0.85; credible interval [Cr.I] 0.63-1.05). Similarly, the reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality was comparable between the LAAC device and novel oral anticoagulants (OR 0.71; Cr.I 0.49-1.22). The LAAC device was found to be superior to novel oral anticoagulants in preventing hemorrhagic stroke (OR 0.45; Cr.I 0.29-0.79), whereas novel oral anticoagulants were found to be superior to the LAAC device in preventing ischemic stroke (OR 0.67; Cr.I 0.24-1.64). The body of clinical evidence was found to be of moderate quality as assed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. Results from the economic evaluation indicate that the LAAC device is cost-effective compared with aspirin in patients with contraindications to oral anticoagulants. In patients without contraindications to oral anticoagulants, we found that the LAAC device is not cost-effective compared with novel oral anticoagulants. Publicly funding the LAAC device in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with contraindications to oral anticoagulants could result in additional funding of $1.1 million to $7.7 million over the first five years. Patients interviewed reported on the impact of living with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and were supportive of the LAAC device as a treatment option.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence suggests that the LAAC device is as effective as novel oral anticoagulants in preventing stroke in people with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. However, our results indicate that the LAAC device is cost-effective only in patients with contraindications to oral anticoagulants. People with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with whom we spoke reported positive support for the LAAC device.