Dataset Information

The business case for quality improvement: oral anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation.

ABSTRACT: The potential to save money within a short time frame provides a more compelling "business case" for quality improvement than merely demonstrating cost-effectiveness. Our objective was to demonstrate the potential for cost savings from improved control in patients anticoagulated for atrial fibrillation.Our population consisted of 67 077 Veterans Health Administration patients anticoagulated for atrial fibrillation between October 1, 2006, and September 30, 2008. We simulated the number of adverse events and their associated costs and utilities, both before and after various degrees of improvement in percent time in therapeutic range (TTR). The simulation had a 2-year time horizon, and costs were calculated from the perspective of the payer. In the base-case analysis, improving TTR by 5% prevented 1114 adverse events, including 662 deaths; it gained 863 quality-adjusted life-years and saved $15.9 million compared with the status quo, not accounting for the cost of the quality improvement program. Improving TTR by 10% prevented 2087 events, gained 1606 quality-adjusted life-years, and saved $29.7 million. In sensitivity analyses, costs were most sensitive to the estimated risk of stroke and the expected stroke reduction from improved TTR. Utilities were most sensitive to the estimated risk of death and the expected mortality benefit from improved TTR.A quality improvement program to improve anticoagulation control probably would be cost-saving for the payer, even if it were only modestly effective in improving control and even without considering the value of improved health. This study demonstrates how to make a business case for a quality improvement initiative.

SUBMITTER: Rose AJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3967019 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The business case for quality improvement: oral anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation.

Rose Adam J AJ Berlowitz Dan R DR Ash Arlene S AS Ozonoff Al A Hylek Elaine M EM Goldhaber-Fiebert Jeremy D JD

Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes 20110628 4

<h4>Background</h4>The potential to save money within a short time frame provides a more compelling "business case" for quality improvement than merely demonstrating cost-effectiveness. Our objective was to demonstrate the potential for cost savings from improved control in patients anticoagulated for atrial fibrillation.<h4>Methods and results</h4>Our population consisted of 67 077 Veterans Health Administration patients anticoagulated for atrial fibrillation between October 1, 2006, and Septem ...[more]

PMID: 21712521

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Cardiological societies recommend, in their guidelines, that patients with atrial fibrillation and an intermediate (or higher) risk of stroke and systemic embolization should be treated with oral anticoagulant drugs. For patients who do not have mitral valve stenosis or a mechanical valve prosthesis, non-vitamin-K dependent oral anticoagulants (NOAC) are preferred over vitamin K antagonists (VKA) for this purpose. It is unclear, however, whether patients with chronic kidney disease and atrial fibrillation benefit from oral anticoagulation to the same extent as those with normal kidney function. It is also unclear which of the two types of anti - coagulant drug is preferable for patients with chronic kidney disease; NOAC are, in part, renally eliminated. METHODS:This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective literature search, and on international guidelines. RESULTS:Current evidence suggests that patients with atrial fibrillation who have chronic kidney disease with a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) above 15 mL/ min/1.73 m² should be treated with an oral anticoagulant drug if they have an at least intermediate risk of embolization, as assessed with the CHA2DS2-VASc score. For patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (GFR from 15 to 29 mL/ min/1.73 m²), however, this recommendation is based only on registry studies. For dialysis patients with atrial fibrillation, decisions whether to give oral anticoagulant drugs should be taken on an individual basis, in view of the elevated risk of hemorrhage and the unclear efficacy of such drugs in these patients. The subgroup analyses of the NOAC approval studies show that, for patients with atrial fibrillation and chronic kidney disease with a creatinine clearance of >25-30 mL/min, NOAC should be given in preference to VKA, as long as the patient does not have mitral valve stenosis or a mechanical valve prosthesis. For those whose creatinine clearance is less than 25 mL/min, the relative merits of NOAC versus VKA are still debated. CONCLUSION:The cardiological societies' recommendation that patients with atrial fibrillation should be given oral anticoagulant drugs applies to the majority of such patients who also have chronic kidney disease.

Project description:Background and aimsFew recent large-scale studies have evaluated the risks and benefits of continuing oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy after catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF). This study evaluated the status of continuation of OAC therapy and the association between continuation of OAC therapy and thromboembolic and bleeding events according to the CHADS2 score.MethodsThis retrospective study included data from the Japanese nationwide administrative claims database of patients who underwent CA for AF between April 2014 and March 2021. Patients without AF recurrence assessed by administrative data of the treatment modalities were divided into two groups according to continuation of OAC therapy 6 months after the index CA. The primary outcomes were thromboembolism and major bleeding after a landmark period of 6 months. After inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis, the association between OAC continuation and outcomes was determined according to the CHADS2 score.ResultsAmong 231 374 patients included, 69.7%, 21.6%, and 8.7% had CHADS2 scores of ≤1, 2, and ≥3, respectively. Of these, 71% continued OAC therapy at 6 months. The OAC continuation rate was higher in the high CHADS2 score group than that in the low CHADS2 score group. Among all patients, 2451 patients (0.55 per 100 person-years) had thromboembolism and 2367 (0.53 per 100 person-years) had major bleeding. In the CHADS2 score ≤1 group, the hazard ratio of the continued OAC group was 0.86 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.74-1.01, P = .06] for thromboembolism and was 1.51 (95% CI: 1.27-1.80, P < .001) for major bleeding. In the CHADS2 score ≥3 group, the hazard ratio of the continued OAC group was 0.61 (95% CI: 0.46-0.82, P = .001) for thromboembolism and was 1.05 (95% CI: 0.71-1.56, P = 0.81) for major bleeding.ConclusionsThis observational study suggests that the benefits and risks of continuing OAC therapy after CA for AF differ based on the patient's CHADS2 score. The risk of major bleeding due to OAC continuation seems to outweigh the risk reduction of thromboembolism in patients with lower thromboembolic risk.

Project description:BackgroundNon-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC) have superior safety and comparable efficacy profile compared to vitamin-K antagonists (VKAs), with more convenient dosing schemes. However, issues with adherence to the NOACs remain unsolved.AimsWe sought to investigate the adherence to oral anticoagulation (OAC) and baseline factors associated with poor adherence after ischaemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).MethodsWe recruited hospitalised patients (2013-2019) from two prospective stroke registries in Larissa and Helsinki University Hospitals and invited survived patients to participate in a telephone interview. We assessed adherence with the Adherence to Refills and Medications Scale (ARMS) and defined poor adherence as a score of over 17. In addition to demographics, individual comorbidities, and stroke features, we assessed the association of CHA2DS2-VASc and SAMe-TT2R2 scores with poor adherence.ResultsAmong 396 patients (median age 75.0 years, interquartile range [IQR] 70-80; 57% men; median time from ischaemic stroke to interview 21 months [IQR 12-33]; median ARMS score 17 [IQR 17-19]), 56% of warfarin users and 44% of NOAC users reported poor adherence. In the multivariable regression model adjusted for site, sex, and age, poor adherence was independently associated with tertiary education, absence of heart failure, smoking history, use of VKA prior to index stroke, and prior ischaemic stroke. CHA2DS2-VASc and SAMe-TT2R2 scores were not associated with poor adherence.ConclusionsAdherence was poor in half of AF patients who survived an ischaemic stroke. Independent patient-related factors, rather than composite scores, were associated with poor adherence in these patients.KEY MESSAGESAdherence was poor in half of the atrial fibrillation patients who survived an ischaemic stroke.Independent patient-related factors rather than composite scores were associated with poor adherence.The findings support the importance of recognising adherence support as a crucial part of holistic patient care recommended by recent AF guideline.

Dataset Information

The business case for quality improvement: oral anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation.

Publications

The business case for quality improvement: oral anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets