Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Ann Intern Med. 2004 Nov 2;141(9):653-61.

Cost-effectiveness of rhythm versus rate control in atrial fibrillation.

Author information

  • 1Center for Evaluation of Medicine, McMaster University and St. Joseph's Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. marshd@mcmaster.ca

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Atrial fibrillation is the most common type of sustained cardiac arrhythmia, but recent trials have identified no clear advantage of rhythm control over rate control. Consequently, economic factors often play a role in guiding treatment selection.

OBJECTIVE:

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of rhythm-control versus rate-control strategies for atrial fibrillation in the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM).

DESIGN:

Retrospective economic evaluation. Nonparametric bootstrapping was used to estimate the distribution of incremental costs and effects on the cost-effectiveness plane.

DATA SOURCES:

Data on survival and use of health care resources were obtained for all 4060 AFFIRM participants. Unit costs were estimated from various U.S. databases.

TARGET POPULATION:

Patients with atrial fibrillation who were 65 years of age or who had other risk factors for stroke or death, similar to those enrolled in AFFIRM.

TIME HORIZON:

Mean follow-up of 3.5 years.

PERSPECTIVE:

Third-party payer.

INTERVENTIONS:

Management of patients with atrial fibrillation with antiarrhythmic drugs (rhythm control) compared with drugs that control heart rate (rate control).

OUTCOME MEASURES:

Mean survival, resource use, costs, and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS:

A mean survival gain of 0.08 year (P = 0.10) was observed for rate control. Patients in the rate-control group used fewer resources (hospital days, pacemaker procedures, cardioversions, and short-stay and emergency department visits). Rate control costs 5077 dollars less per person than rhythm control.

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS:

Cost savings ranged from 2189 dollars o 5481 dollars per person. Rhythm control was more costly and less effective than rate control in 95% of the bootstrap replicates over a wide range of cost assumptions.

LIMITATIONS:

Resource use was limited to key items collected in AFFIRM, and the results are generalizable only to similar patient populations with atrial fibrillation.

CONCLUSION:

Rate control is a cost-effective approach to the management of atrial fibrillation compared with maintenance of sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation similar to those enrolled in AFFIRM.

PMID:
15520421
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Silverchair Information Systems
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk