Cost-Minimization Model in Cryptogenic Stroke: ePatch vs Implantable Loop Recorder in Patients from the UK, Netherlands, and Sweden.

IF 1.3 Q4 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL Medical Devices-Evidence and Research Pub Date : 2024-12-05 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/MDER.S492389
Vasily Lukyanov, Purvee Parikh, Manish Wadhwa, Alexandria Dunn, Roderick van Leerdam, Johan Engdahl, Goran Medic
{"title":"Cost-Minimization Model in Cryptogenic Stroke: ePatch vs Implantable Loop Recorder in Patients from the UK, Netherlands, and Sweden.","authors":"Vasily Lukyanov, Purvee Parikh, Manish Wadhwa, Alexandria Dunn, Roderick van Leerdam, Johan Engdahl, Goran Medic","doi":"10.2147/MDER.S492389","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients who have experienced a cryptogenic stroke (CS) may benefit from extended monitoring and possible earlier detection of atrial fibrillation (AF), allowing for the timely initiation of appropriate pharmacotherapy.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This economic study aimed to evaluate the clinical and cost outcomes of using mid-term cardiac monitors (referred to as \"ePatch\") versus ILR-only in post-CS patients in the UK, Netherlands (NL) and Sweden.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An existing cost-minimization model was modified to fit healthcare settings in the UK, Netherlands and Sweden. The model's target population was composed of adult patients who had previously experienced a CS, but had no documented history of AF. The model compares the one-year direct medical costs between two groups: one group receiving wearable ePatch, the other group proceeding directly to ILR.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When applied to a group of 1,000 patients, the ePatch versus ILR approach resulted in cost savings, due to combination of reduced expenses and decreased modelled occurrence of recurrent strokes in all three countries studied. In the base case analysis, the cost savings per patient with detected AF for ePatch ranged from 3.4-6.0 times, depending on the country.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Utilizing ePatch extended wear Holter for mid-term ECG monitoring in CS patients represents a cost-saving alternative to monitoring with ILR. The cost savings were achieved by reducing device expenses and by prevention of recurrent strokes via earlier anticoagulation initiation. Preventing recurrent strokes in this population is highly significant, as it can lead to improved long-term health outcomes and reduced overall healthcare costs.</p>","PeriodicalId":47140,"journal":{"name":"Medical Devices-Evidence and Research","volume":"17 ","pages":"471-490"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11626978/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Devices-Evidence and Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S492389","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patients who have experienced a cryptogenic stroke (CS) may benefit from extended monitoring and possible earlier detection of atrial fibrillation (AF), allowing for the timely initiation of appropriate pharmacotherapy.

Objective: This economic study aimed to evaluate the clinical and cost outcomes of using mid-term cardiac monitors (referred to as "ePatch") versus ILR-only in post-CS patients in the UK, Netherlands (NL) and Sweden.

Methods: An existing cost-minimization model was modified to fit healthcare settings in the UK, Netherlands and Sweden. The model's target population was composed of adult patients who had previously experienced a CS, but had no documented history of AF. The model compares the one-year direct medical costs between two groups: one group receiving wearable ePatch, the other group proceeding directly to ILR.

Results: When applied to a group of 1,000 patients, the ePatch versus ILR approach resulted in cost savings, due to combination of reduced expenses and decreased modelled occurrence of recurrent strokes in all three countries studied. In the base case analysis, the cost savings per patient with detected AF for ePatch ranged from 3.4-6.0 times, depending on the country.

Conclusion: Utilizing ePatch extended wear Holter for mid-term ECG monitoring in CS patients represents a cost-saving alternative to monitoring with ILR. The cost savings were achieved by reducing device expenses and by prevention of recurrent strokes via earlier anticoagulation initiation. Preventing recurrent strokes in this population is highly significant, as it can lead to improved long-term health outcomes and reduced overall healthcare costs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Devices-Evidence and Research
Medical Devices-Evidence and Research ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
A Pilot Open-Label Randomized Study to Evaluate the Safety, Tolerability, and Acceptability of the IntegriMedical® Needle Free Injection System versus a Conventional Needle-Based System in Healthy Volunteers, Using Normal Saline as a Placebo. What is Known About Early Mobilisation After Cardiac Electronic Device Implant? A Scoping Review. The Development of Non-Invasive Optical Brain Pulse Monitoring: A Review. Cost-Minimization Model in Cryptogenic Stroke: ePatch vs Implantable Loop Recorder in Patients from the UK, Netherlands, and Sweden. Initial Validation of the NOL Nociception Level Index® Monitoring System in Black and Multiracial People.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1