Evaluation of the cost of atrial fibrillation during emergency hospitalization

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in severe aortic stenosis patients at low surgical mortality risk: a cost-effectiveness analysis in Belgium

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the SAPIEN 3 device has recently shown significant clinical benefits, compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), in patients at low risk for surgical mortality (PARTNER 3 trial, NCT02675114). Currently in Belgium, TAVI use is restricted to high-risk or inoperable patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (sSAS). This cost-utility analysis aimed to assess whether TAVI with SAPIEN 3 could lead to potential cost-savings compared with SAVR, in the low-risk sSAS population in Belgium.

METHODS

A previously published, two-stage, Markov-based cost-utility model was used. Clinical outcomes were captured using data from PARTNER 3 and the model was adapted for the Belgian context using cost data from the perspective of the Belgian National Healthcare System, indexed to 2022. A lifetime horizon was chosen. The model outputs included changes in direct healthcare costs, survival and health-related quality of life using TAVI versus SAVR.

RESULTS

TAVI with SAPIEN 3 provides meaningful clinical and cost benefits over SAVR, in terms of an increase in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.94 and cost-saving of €3 013 per patient. While initial procedure costs were higher for TAVI compared with SAVR, costs related to rehabilitation, disabling stroke, treated atrial fibrillation, and rehospitalization were lower. The cost-effectiveness of TAVI over SAVR remained robust in sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

TAVI with SAPIEN 3 may offer a meaningful alternative intervention to SAVR in Belgian low-risk patients with sSAS, showing both clinical benefits and cost savings associated with post-procedure patient management.

Predictors and clinical outcomes of inpatient versus ambulatory management after an emergency department visit for atrial fibrillation: A population-based study

BACKGROUND

There is substantial variation in the management of atrial fibrillation (AF) in the emergency department (ED), particularly whether these patients are admitted to hospital. We sought to identify factors that predict admission and to examine the relationship between AF admission and outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of patients ≥20 years of age who had an index ED visit with a primary diagnosis of AF from between April 1, 2005, and March 31, 2010, in Ontario, Canada. We excluded patients who died during the index ED visit or hospitalization. A hierarchical logistic regression model was used to determine predictors of hospital admission during the index ED visit. A propensity-matched analysis was used to test for associations between hospital admission and 1-year outcomes.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of 33,699 patients, of whom 16,270 (48.3%) were admitted to hospital. Substantial variation was seen across the 154 hospitals, with admission rates ranging from 3.0% to 91.0%. Admitted patients had higher rates of comorbidities compared to discharged patients. Mortality rates at 1 year were significantly higher in matched admitted versus discharged patients (hazard ratio 1.45, 95% CI 1.33-1.57, P < .001), as were all-cause hospitalizations (hazard ratio 1.18, 95% CI 1.13-1.22, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Wide practice variation was observed between hospitals in terms of the proportion of patients admitted. Our data suggest that selected patients when discharged have similar or improved outcomes compared to those who are initially admitted. Future research is needed to better standardize admission/discharge decisions for AF patients in the ED.