Background:

Cryptogenic stroke is a stroke for which no cause is identified after standard diagnostic tests. Long-term implantable cardiac monitors may be better at diagnosing atrial fibrillation and provide an opportunity to reduce the risk of stroke recurrence with anticoagulants.

Objectives:

The objectives were to assess the diagnostic test accuracy, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three implantable monitors [BioMonitor 2-AF™ (Biotronik SE & Co. KG, Berlin, Germany), Confirm Rx™ (Abbott Laboratories, Lake Bluff, IL, USA) and Reveal LINQ™ (Medtronic plc, Minneapolis, MN, USA)] in patients who have had a cryptogenic stroke and for whom no atrial fibrillation is detected after 24 hours of external electrocardiographic monitoring.

Data sources:

MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment databases were searched from inception until September 2018.

Review methods:

A systematic review was undertaken. Two reviewers agreed on studies for inclusion and performed quality assessment using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Results were discussed narratively because there were insufficient data for synthesis. A two-stage de novo economic model was developed: (1) a short-term patient flow model to identify cryptogenic stroke patients who have had atrial fibrillation detected and been prescribed anticoagulation treatment (rather than remaining on antiplatelet treatment) and (2) a long-term Markov model that captured the lifetime costs and benefits of patients on either anticoagulation or antiplatelet treatment.

Results:

One randomised controlled trial, Cryptogenic Stroke and underlying Atrial Fibrillation (CRYSTAL-AF) (Sanna T, Diener HC, Passman RS, Di Lazzaro V, Bernstein RA, Morillo CA, et al. Cryptogenic stroke and underlying atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2014;370:2478–86), was identified, and no diagnostic test accuracy study was identified. The CRYSTAL-AF trial compared the Reveal™ XT (a Reveal LINQ predecessor) (Medtronic plc) monitor with standard of care monitoring. Twenty-six single-arm observational studies for the Reveal devices were also identified. The only data for BioMonitor 2-AF or Confirm Rx were from mixed population studies supplied by the companies. Atrial fibrillation detection in the CRYSTAL-AF trial was higher with the Reveal XT than with standard monitoring at all time points. By 36 months, atrial fibrillation was detected in 19% of patients with an implantable cardiac monitor and in 2.3% of patients receiving conventional follow-up. The 26 observational studies demonstrated that, even in a cryptogenic stroke population, atrial fibrillation detection rates are highly variable and most cases are asymptomatic; therefore, they probably would not have been picked up without an implantable cardiac monitor. Device-related adverse events, such as pain and infection, were low in all studies. The de novo economic model produced incremental cost effectiveness ratios comparing implantable cardiac monitors with standard of care monitoring to detect atrial fibrillation in cryptogenic stroke patients based on data for the Reveal XT device, which can be related to Reveal LINQ. The BioMonitor 2-AF and Confirm RX were included in the analysis by making a strong assumption of equivalence with Reveal LINQ. The results indicate that implantable cardiac monitors could be considered cost-effective at a £20,000–30,000 threshold. When each device is compared incrementally, BioMonitor 2-AF dominates Reveal LINQ and Confirm RX.

Limitations:

The cost-effectiveness analysis for implantable cardiac monitors is based on a strong assumption of clinical equivalence and should be interpreted with caution.

Conclusions:

All three implantable cardiac monitors could be considered cost-effective at a £20,000–30,000 threshold, compared with standard of care monitoring, for cryptogenic stroke patients with no atrial fibrillation detected after 24 hours of external electrocardiographic monitoring; however, further clinical studies are required to confirm their efficacy in cryptogenic stroke patients.

Study registration:

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018109216.

Funding:

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Article history

The research reported in this issue of the journal was commissioned and funded by the HTA programme on behalf of NICE as project number 18/13/01. The protocol was agreed in August 2018. The assessment report began editorial review in March 2019 and was accepted for publication in July 2019. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors’ report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.

Declared competing interests of authors

none

Disclaimer

The British Medical Journal (BMJ) Technology Assessment Group (BMJ-TAG) and the editorial team of the BMJ work independently of one another. The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the BMJ-TAG.