Why the study?
Although LAAOS III showed that concomitant LAA occlusion reduces ischemic stroke or systemic embolism in AF patients undergoing cardiac surgery, the cost implications remained to be determined.
Does concomitant LAA occlusion reduce costs in patients with atrial fibrillation and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of ≥2 undergoing cardiac surgery?
Does concomitant LAA occlusion reduce costs in patients with atrial fibrillation and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of ≥2 undergoing cardiac surgery?
Concomitant LAA occlusion during cardiac surgery is an economically dominant (cost-saving) strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation and a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2.
Concomitant LAA occlusion is cost-saving during cardiac surgery; extends LAAOS III efficacy to economic dominance in high-risk AF.
Background The LAAOS III (Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Study) clinical trial demonstrated that concomitant left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion leads to a lower risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism compared with no occlusion in participants with atrial fibrillation and a CHA 2 DS 2 ‐VASc score of ≥2 undergoing cardiac surgery for another indication. We report the cost implications of concomitant LAA occlusion during cardiac surgery. Methods and Results Using LAAOS III data, we compared the costs (in US dollars) associated with LAA occlusion to no occlusion from the perspective of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. We calculated the average cost per participant during the trial by applying Medicare reimbursement costs to cardiovascular events for all trial participants. We conducted sensitivity analyses, varying the cost of stroke ±25% and occlusion technique use. Cost neutrality was defined as a mean cost difference within ±5% of the cost per participant in the no‐occlusion group. Total study cost per participant was $3878 in the LAA occlusion group and $4490 in the no‐occlusion group, a mean difference of −$612 (95% CI, −$1276 to $45). The main drivers of cost savings were fewer stroke events during the trial (mean difference of −$1021). In sensitivity analyses, LAA occlusion was cost saving for suture and stapler techniques but more expensive with closure device. Conclusions Concomitant LAA occlusion was cost saving for participants in LAAOS III. Our findings support concomitant LAA occlusion as an economically dominant strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation and a CHA 2 DS 2 ‐VASc score of ≥2 undergoing cardiac surgery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Eqbal et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: