Akehurst, R.

Background Recent publications reached conflicting conclusions about the cost‐effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with the Watchman device (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA) for stroke risk reduction in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). This analysis sought to assess the cost‐effectiveness of LAAC relative to both warfarin and nonwarfarin oral anticoagulants (NOACs) using pooled, long‐term data from the randomized PROTECT AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) and PREVAIL (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of the Watchman LAA Closure Device in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Versus Long‐Term Warfarin) trials. Methods and Results A Markov model was constructed from a US payer perspective with a lifetime (20‐year) horizon. LAAC clinical event rates and stroke outcomes were from pooled PROTECT AF and PREVAIL trial 5‐year data. Warfarin and NOAC inputs were derived from published meta‐analyses. The model was populated with a cohort of 10 000 patients, aged 70 years, at moderate stroke and bleeding risk. Sensitivity analyses were performed. LAAC was cost‐effective relative to warfarin by year 7 ($48 674/quality‐adjusted life‐year) and dominant (more effective and less costly) by year 10. LAAC became cost‐effective and dominant compared with NOACs by year 5. Over a lifetime, LAAC provided 0.60 more quality‐adjusted life‐years than warfarin and 0.29 more than NOACs. In sensitivity analyses, LAAC was cost‐effective relative to warfarin and NOACs in 98% and 95% of simulations, respectively. Conclusions Using pooled, 5‐year PROTECT AF and PREVAIL trial data, LAAC proved to be not only cost‐effective, but cost saving relative to warfarin and NOACs. LAAC with the Watchman device is an economically viable stroke risk reduction strategy for patients with AF seeking an alternative to lifelong anticoagulation.

Background and Purpose— Once a patient with atrial fibrillation experiences an embolic event, the risk of a recurrent event increases 2.6-fold. New treatments have emerged as viable treatment alternatives to warfarin for stroke risk reduction in secondary prevention populations. This analysis sought to assess the cost-effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) compared with warfarin and the non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants dabigatran 150 mg, apixaban and rivaroxaban in the prevention of stroke in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients with a prior stroke or transient ischemic attack. Methods— A Markov model was constructed using data from the secondary prevention subgroup analyses of the non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant and LAAC pivotal trials. Costs were from 2016 US Medicare reimbursement rates and the literature. The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from a US Medicare perspective over a lifetime (20 years) horizon. The model was populated with a cohort of 10 000 patients aged 70 years with a CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score of 7 (annual stroke risk=9.60%) and HAS-BLED score of 3 (annual bleeding risk=3.74%). Results— LAAC achieved cost-effectiveness relative to dabigatran at year 5 and warfarin and apixaban at year 6. At 10 years, LAAC had more quality-adjusted life years (4.986 versus 4.769, 4.869, 4.888, and 4.810) and lower costs ($42 616 versus $53 770, $58 774, $55 656, and $58 655) than warfarin, dabigatran, apixaban, and rivaroxaban, respectively, making LAAC the dominant (more effective and less costly) stroke risk reduction strategy. LAAC remained the dominant strategy over the lifetime analysis. Conclusions— Upfront procedure costs initially make LAAC higher cost than warfarin and the non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants, but within 10 years, LAAC delivers more quality-adjusted life years and has lower total costs, making LAAC the most cost-effective treatment strategy for secondary prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation.