Skip to main content

Left atrial appendage closure with the watchman device reduces atrial fibrillation management costs

Abstract

Aims

To report hospitalization costs of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) submitted to percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with the Watchman device.

Methods

Pre- and post-procedural hospitalization AF-related costs were calculated using the DRG system (diagnosis-related groups) and compared.

Results

Between 2012 and 2016, 677 non-valvular AF patients underwent LAAC. Median time from first cardiac hospitalization to LAAC was 5.9 years (IQR 1.6–9.1) and median follow-up after LAAC was 4.8 years (IQR 3.6–5.6). LAAC mortality was 1.3% and follow-up mortality 16.9%. Median pre-LAAC hospitalization cost was € 17,867 (IQR € 7512–35,08) and post-LAAC € 8772 (IQR € 1183–25,159) (p < 0.0001). Annualized cost pre-LAAC was 3773 € (IQR € 1644–8,493) and post-LAAC 2,001 € (IQR € 260–6913) (p < 0.0001). Follow-up survivors had significantly lower post-LAAC costs (p < 0.0001) and after a survival cut-off time of 4.6 years LAAC procedural and post-procedural hospitalization costs achieved parity with pre-LACC costs (AUC 0.64; p = 0.02). CHA2DS2-VASc score (B = 0.04; p = 0.02; 95% CI 0.006–0.08), and HAS-BLED score (B = 0.08; p = 0.004; 95% CI 0.02–0.14) were independent determinants for annualized hospitalization costs post-LAAC. At Cox-regression analysis the DRG mean clinical complexity level (CCL) was the only independent determinant for follow-up mortality (OR = 2.2; p < 0.0001; 95% CI 1.6–2.8) with a cut-off value of 2.25 to predict follow-up mortality (AUC 0.72; p < 0.0001; Spec. 70%; Sens. 70%).

Conclusion

Hospitalization costs pre-LAAC are consistent, and after LAAC, they are significantly reduced. Costs seem related to the patient's risk profile at the time of the procedure. With the increase in post-LAAC survival time, the procedure becomes economically more profitable.

Graphic abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. 1.

    Go AS, Hylek EM, Philips KA, Chang Y, Henault LE, Selby JV, Singer DE (2001) revalence of diagnosed atrial fibrillation in adults: national implications for rhythm management and stroke prevention: the Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation (ATRIA) Study. JAMA 285:2370–2375

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Wolf PA, Abbott RD, Kannel WB (1991) Atrial fibrillation as an independent risk factor for stroke: the Framingham Study. Stroke 22:983–988

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Hindricks G, Potpara T, Dagres N, Arbelo E, Bax JJ, Blomström-Lundqvist C, Boriani G, Castella M, Dan GA, Dilaveris PE, Fauchier L, Filippatos G, Kalman JM, La Meir M, Lane DA, Lebeau JP, Lettino M, Lip GYH, Pinto FJ, Thomas GN, Valgimigli M, Van Gelder IC, Van Putte BP, Watkins CL; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS): The Task Force for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(5):373-498. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa612. Erratum in: Eur Heart J. 2021;42(5):507. Erratum in: Eur Heart J. 2021;42(5):546-547. Erratum in: Eur Heart J. 2021; PMID: 32860505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    January CT, Wann LS, Calkins H, Chen LY, Cigarroa JE, Cleveland JC Jr, Ellinor PT, Ezekowitz MD, Field ME, Furie KL, Heidenreich PA, Murray KT, Shea JB, Tracy CM (2019) AHA/ACC/HRS focused update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. J Am Coll Cardiol 74:104–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Nédellec E, Pineau J, Prognon P, Martelli N (2018) Level of evidence in economic evaluations of left atrial appendage closure devices: a systematic review. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 16:793–802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Micieli A, Wijeysundera HC, Qiu F, Atzema CL, Singh SM (2016) A decision analysis of percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion relative to novel and traditional oral anticoagulation for stroke prevention in patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation. Med Decis Mak 36:366–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Reddy VY, Akehurst RL, Armstrong SO, Amorosi SL, Brereton N, Hertz DS, Holmes DR Jr (2016) Cost effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman device for atrial fibrillation patients with absolute contraindications to warfarin. Europace 18:979–986

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Singh SM, Micieli A, Wijeysundera HC (2013) Economic evaluation of percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion, dabigatran, and warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Circulation 127:2414–2423

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Lee VWY, Tsai RBC, Chow IHI, Yan BP, Kaya MG, Park JW, Lam YY (2016) Cost-effectiveness analysis of left atrial appendage occlusion compared with pharmacological strategies for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 16:167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Reddy VY, Akehurst RL, Armstrong SO, Amorosi SL, Beard SM, Holmes DR (2015) Time to cost-effectiveness following stroke reduction strategies in AF: warfarin versus NOACs versus LAA closure. J Am Coll Cardiol 66:2728–2739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Freeman JV, Hutton DW, Barnes GD, Zhu RP, Owens DK, Garber AM, Go AS, Hlatky MA, Heidenreich PA, Wang PJ, Al-Ahmad A, Turakhia MP (2016) Costeffectiveness of percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage in atrial fibrillation based on results from PROTECT AF versus PREVAIL. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 9:3407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Saw J, Bennell MC, Singh SM, Wijeysundera HC (2016) Cost-effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation patients with contraindications to anticoagulation. Can J Cardiol 32:1355.e9-1355.e14

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giuseppe D´Ancona.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None of the authors has conflicts of interest to declare.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

D´Ancona, G., Safak, E., Weber, D. et al. Left atrial appendage closure with the watchman device reduces atrial fibrillation management costs. Clin Res Cardiol (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-021-01943-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Atrial
  • Fibrillation
  • Percutaneous
  • Occlusion
  • Appendage
  • Costs
  • DRG
  • Risk
  • Factors