Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of insertable cardiac monitors for diagnosis of atrial fibrillation in cryptogenic stroke in Australia.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Detection of atrial fibrillation (AF) is required to initiate oral anticoagulation (OAC) after cryptogenic stroke (CS). However, paroxysmal AF can be difficult to diagnose with short term cardiac monitoring. Taking an Australian payer perspective, we evaluated whether long-term continuous monitoring for 3 years with an insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) is cost-effective for preventing recurrent stroke in patients with CS.

Methods

A lifetime Markov model was developed to simulate the follow-up of patients, comparing long-term continuous monitoring with an ICM to monitoring by conventional care. We used a linked evidence approach to estimate the rates of recurrent stroke when AF detection leads to initiation of OAC, as detected using ICM during the lifetime of the device or as detected using usual care. All diagnostic and patient management costs were modeled. Other model inputs were determined by literature review. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was undertaken to explore the effect of parameter uncertainty according to CHADS₂ score and OAC treatment effect.

Results

In the base-case analysis, the model predicted an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of A$29 570 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Among CHADS₂ subgroups analyses, the ICER ranged from A$26 342/QALY (CHADS₂ = 6) to A$42 967/QALY (CHADS₂ = 2). PSA suggested that the probabilities of ICM strategy being cost-effective were 53.4% and 78.7%, at thresholds of $30 000 (highly cost-effective) and $50 000 per QALY (cost-effective), respectively.

Conclusions

Long-term continuous monitoring with an ICM is a cost-effective intervention to prevent recurrent stroke in patients following CS in the Australian context.

SUBMITTER: Thijs V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8339089 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimThis paper presents the preliminary results from the ongoing REMOTE trial. It aims to explore the opportunities and hurdles of using insertable cardiac monitors (ICMs) and photoplethysmography-based mobile health (PPG-based mHealth) using a smartphone or smartwatch to detect atrial fibrillation (AF) in cryptogenic stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) patients.Methods and resultsCryptogenic stroke or TIA patients (n = 39) received an ICM to search for AF and were asked to use a blinded PPG-based mHealth application for 6 months simultaneously. They were randomized to smartphone or smartwatch monitoring. In total, 68,748 1-min recordings were performed using PPG-based mHealth. The number of mHealth recordings decreased significantly over time in both smartphone and smartwatch groups (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002, respectively). Insufficient signal quality was more frequently observed in smartwatch (43.3%) compared to smartphone recordings (17.8%, p < 0.001). However, when looking at the labeling of the mHealth recordings on a patient level, there was no significant difference in signal quality between both groups. Moreover, the use of a smartwatch resulted in significantly more 12-h periods (91.4%) that were clinically useful compared to smartphone users (84.8%) as they had at least one recording of sufficient signal quality. Simultaneously, continuous data was collected from the ICMs, resulting in approximately 6,660,000 min of data (i.e., almost a 100-fold increase compared to mHealth). The ICM algorithm detected AF and other cardiac arrhythmias in 10 and 19 patients, respectively. However, these were only confirmed after adjudication by the remote monitoring team in 1 (10%) and 5 (26.3%) patients, respectively. The confirmed AF was also detected by PPG-based mHealth.ConclusionBased on the preliminary observations, our paper illustrates the potential as well as the limitations of PPG-based mHealth and ICMs to detect AF in cryptogenic stroke and TIA patients in four elements: (i) mHealth was able to detect AF in a patient in which AF was confirmed on the ICM; (ii) Even state-of-the-art ICMs yielded many false-positive AF registrations; (iii) Both mHealth and ICM still require physician revision; and (iv) Blinding of the mHealth results impairs compliance and motivation.