This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (37)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Arrhythmias  • Pacemakers/ Defibrillators  • Alert me on articles by topic

Mark H. Eckman, MD; Rodney H. Falk, MD; Stephen G. Pauker, MD

Arch Intern Med. 1998;158:1669-1677.

Background  The most appropriate treatment(s) for patients with atrial fibrillation remains uncertain.

Objective  To examine the cost-effectiveness of antithrombotic and antiarrhythmic treatment strategies for atrial fibrillation.

Methods  We performed decision and cost-effectiveness analyses using a Markov state transition model. We gathered data from the English-language literature using MEDLINE searches and bibliographies from selected articles. We obtained financial data from nationwide physician-fee references, a medical center's cost accounting system, and one of New England's larger managed care organizations. We examined strategies that included combinations of cardioversion, antiarrhythmic therapy with quinidine, sotalol hydrochloride, or amiodarone, and anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy.

Results  For a 65-year-old man with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, any intervention results in a significant gain in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with no specific therapy. Use of aspirin results in the largest incremental gain (1.2 QALYs). Cardioversion followed by the use of amiodarone and warfarin together is the most effective strategy, yielding a gain of 2.3 QALYs compared with no specific therapy. The marginal cost-effectiveness ratios of cardioversion followed by aspirin, with or without amiodarone, are $33,800 per QALY and $10,800 per QALY, respectively. Cardioversion followed by amiodarone and warfarin has a marginal cost-effectiveness ratio of $92,400 per QALY compared with amiodarone and aspirin. Strategies that include cardioversion followed by either quinidine or sotalol are both more expensive and less effective than competing strategies.

Conclusions  Cardioversion of patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation followed by the use of aspirin alone or with amiodarone has a reasonable marginal cost-effectiveness ratio. While cardioversion followed by the use of amiodarone and warfarin results in the greatest gain in quality-adjusted life expectancy, it is expensive (ie, has a high marginal cost-effectiveness ratio) compared with aspirin and amiodarone. Finally, for patients who are bothered little by symptoms of atrial fibrillation, cardioversion followed by either aspirin or warfarin without subsequent antiarrhythmic therapy is the treatment of choice.

From the Divisions of Clinical Decision Making and General Medicine, the Department of Medicine, New England Medical Center (Drs Eckman and Pauker), and the Section of Cardiology, Boston University Medical Center Hospital (Dr Falk), Boston, Mass.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Antithrombotic Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition)
Singer et al.
Chest 2008;133:546S-592S.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

ASHP Therapeutic Position Statement on Antithrombotic Therapy in Chronic Atrial Fibrillation
Nutescu
Am J Health Syst Pharm 2007;64:2281-2291.
FULL TEXT  

Incremental Benefit and Cost-Effectiveness of High-Dose Statin Therapy in High-Risk Patients With Coronary Artery Disease
Chan et al.
Circulation 2007;115:2398-2409.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Cost-Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation
Chan et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:2513-2520.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Cost-Effectiveness of Rhythm versus Rate Control in Atrial Fibrillation
Marshall et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2004;141:653-661.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Rate control is more cost-effective than rhythm control for patients with persistent atrial fibrillation -- results from the RAte Control versus Electrical cardioversion (RACE) study
Hagens et al.
Eur Heart J 2004;25:1542-1549.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Antithrombotic Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation: The Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy
Singer et al.
Chest 2004;126:429S-456S.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Effect of Intensity of Oral Anticoagulation on Stroke Severity and Mortality in Atrial Fibrillation
Hylek et al.
NEJM 2003;349:1019-1026.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Comparison of outpatient vs inpatient direct current cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: safety, efficacy and cost savings
Gronefeld et al.
Eur Heart J Suppl 2003;5:H19-H24.
ABSTRACT  

Increasing Trends in Hospitalization for Atrial Fibrillation in the United States, 1985 Through 1999: Implications for Primary Prevention
Wattigney et al.
Circulation 2003;108:711-716.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Modulation of the Human Kv1.5 Channel by Protein Kinase C Activation: Role of the Kvbeta 1.2 Subunit
Williams et al.
J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 2002;302:545-550.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Amiodarone: pearl or peril?
Krahn et al.
Eur Heart J 2002;23:1001-1002.
FULL TEXT  

Amiodarone reduces procedures and costs related to atrial fibrillation in a controlled clinical trial
Lumer et al.
Eur Heart J 2002;23:1050-1056.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of the effectiveness of antiarrhythmic agents at promoting sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation
Nichol et al.
Heart 2002;87:535-543.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Errors in health care management: what do they cost?
Rigby and Litt
Qual Saf Health Care 2000;9:216-221.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Cost-Effectiveness of Cardioversion and Antiarrhythmic Therapy in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation
Catherwood et al.
ANN INTERN MED 1999;130:625-636.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Finding What You Seek: Analyzing Therapies for Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation
Pauker and Eckman
ANN INTERN MED 1999;130:690-691.
FULL TEXT