Document Detail

Comparison of Rate Control versus Rhythm Control for Management of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Coexisting Heart Failure: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  21923439     Owner:  NLM     Status:  In-Data-Review    
Abstract Study Objective. To compare lifetime costs and health outcomes of rate control versus rhythm control for management of atrial fibrillation in patients with coexisting heart failure from the third-party payer perspective. Design. A Markov decision analysis model constructed from costs, utility, and transition probability inputs obtained from randomized clinical trials and publically available databases. Patients. A simulated cohort aged 65 years or older with persistent or paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and heart failure. Measurements and Main Results. Markov states for rhythm control were cardioversion plus amiodarone and maintenance amiodarone, and those for rate control were β-blocker, digoxin, and calcium channel blocker. Transition states included treatment success, hospitalizations for atrial fibrillation and/or heart failure, and severe adverse effects. Economic inputs included cost for drugs, cost of hospitalizations for atrial fibrillation and/or heart failure, and cost of management of severe adverse effects. Costs were measured in 2009 U.S. dollars, and clinical outcomes in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). One-way and multivariable sensitivity analyses were conducted. Uncertainty intervals (UIs) were obtained from probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Rate control was found to be less costly and more effective than rhythm control. Base case and probabilistic sensitivity analyses cost and effectiveness values for rate control were $7231 (95% UI $5517-9016) and 2.395 QALYs (95% UI 2.366-2.424 QALYs); whereas those for rhythm control were $16,291 (95% UI $11,033-21,434) and 2.197 QALYs (95% UI 2.155-2.237 QALYs). No critical values were found for any model parameters in the one-way sensitivity analyses. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that rate control was considered cost-effective in 100% of cases at willingness-to-pay ratios between $0 and $200,000/QALY. Conclusion. Rate control is less costly and more effective than rhythm control and should be the initial treatment for atrial fibrillation among patients with coexisting heart failure.
Alexandra Perez; Daniel R Touchette; Robert J Didomenico; Thomas D Stamos; Surrey M Walton
Related Documents :
19804099 - Clopidogrel plus aspirin in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with fibr...
12757769 - Oral anticoagulation after myocardial infarction.
18195669 - Antiplatelet agents and randomized trials.
9737479 - Monitoring of low-molecular-weight heparins in cardiovascular disease.
18074939 - Current recommendations for the pharmacologic therapy in kawasaki syndrome and manageme...
2868029 - Persantine-aspirin reinfarction study. part ii. secondary coronary prevention with pers...
9390589 - Acute hypovolemia may cause segmental wall motion abnormalities in the absence of myoca...
2532749 - Bm 13.505, a selective thromboxane receptor antagonist, reduces myocardial infarct size...
24945009 - Abnormal electrocardiogram in a patient with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis mimicking my...
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article    
Journal Detail:
Title:  Pharmacotherapy     Volume:  31     ISSN:  1875-9114     ISO Abbreviation:  Pharmacotherapy     Publication Date:  2011 Jun 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2011-09-19     Completed Date:  -     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  8111305     Medline TA:  Pharmacotherapy     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  552-65     Citation Subset:  IM    
1 Department of Sociobehavioral and Administrative Pharmacy, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Economic Impact of Clostridium difficile Infection in a Multihospital Cohort of Academic Health Cent...
Next Document:  Induction treatment with rabbit antithymocyte globulin versus basiliximab in renal transplant recipi...