Key result
Insertable cardiac monitors are cost-effective after cryptogenic stroke at ~£17,000 per QALY gained.
Why the study?
Atrial fibrillation often goes undetected with traditional ECG monitoring techniques, and documentation is required to initiate anticoagulation for recurrent stroke prevention in cryptogenic stroke patients.
Is continuous long-term monitoring with an insertable cardiac monitor cost-effective for preventing recurrent stroke in patients with cryptogenic stroke compared to standard of care?
Is continuous long-term monitoring with an insertable cardiac monitor cost-effective for preventing recurrent stroke in patients with cryptogenic stroke compared to standard of care?
Effect estimate: ICER £17,175
Absolute Event Rate: 7.37% vs 7.22%
Insertable cardiac monitors are a cost-effective strategy for detecting atrial fibrillation and preventing recurrent stroke in patients with cryptogenic stroke from a UK National Health Service perspective.
Supports cost-effectiveness of insertable monitors post-cryptogenic stroke from NHS perspective; extends economic modeling but leaves generalizability open.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Documentation of atrial fibrillation is required to initiate oral anticoagulation therapy for recurrent stroke prevention. Atrial fibrillation often goes undetected with traditional electrocardiogram monitoring techniques. We evaluated whether atrial fibrillation detection using continuous long-term monitoring with an insertable cardiac monitor is cost-effective for preventing recurrent stroke in patients with cryptogenic stroke, in comparison to the standard of care. METHODS: A lifetime Markov model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of insertable cardiac monitors from a UK National Health Service perspective using data from the randomized CRYSTAL-AF trial and other published literature. We also conducted scenario analyses (CHADS2 score) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. All costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5%. RESULTS: Monitoring cryptogenic stroke patients with an insertable cardiac monitor was associated with fewer recurrent strokes and increased quality-adjusted life years compared to the standard of care (7.37 vs 7.22). Stroke-related costs were reduced in insertable cardiac monitor patients, but overall costs remained higher than the standard of care (£19,631 vs £17,045). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £17,175 per quality-adjusted life years gained, compared to standard of care in the base-case scenario, which is below established quality-adjusted life years willingness-to-pay thresholds. When warfarin replaced non-vitamin-K oral anticoagulants as the main anticoagulation therapy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £13,296 per quality-adjusted life years gained. CONCLUSION: Insertable cardiac monitors are a cost-effective diagnostic tool for the prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with cryptogenic stroke. The cost-effectiveness results have relevance for the UK and across value-based healthcare systems that assess costs relative to outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Diamantopoulos et al. (2016) studied cryptogenic stroke. insertable cardiac monitor vs. standard of care was evaluated on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year gained (ICER £17,175). Monitoring cryptogenic stroke patients with an insertable cardiac monitor was cost-effective compared to standard of care, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £17,175 per QALY gained.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: