Cost-effectiveness analysis of patent foramen ovale closure with Amplatzer plus medical therapy compared to medical therapy in patients with a history of stroke in France

Author(s):  
Amel Allou ◽  
Louise Baschet ◽  
Charles Sabourin ◽  
Gilles Montalscot ◽  
Luc Lorgis ◽  
...  
2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (12) ◽  
pp. 585-591 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.T. Drost ◽  
J.P.C. Grutters ◽  
G.-J. van der Wilt ◽  
Y.T. van der Schouw ◽  
A.H.E.M. Maas

Stroke ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 49 (6) ◽  
pp. 1443-1450 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle H. Leppert ◽  
Sharon N. Poisson ◽  
John D. Carroll ◽  
David E. Thaler ◽  
Chong H. Kim ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 112-113
Author(s):  
Jeonghoon Ahn ◽  
Eung Ju Kim ◽  
Kyungmi Oh ◽  
Justin Seung-Ho Yoo ◽  
Maria Koullick

Introduction:Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is an open hole between the right and left upper chambers of the heart. It may increase the risk of stroke, so closure of the hole is considered a secondary prevention in patients who have experienced cryptogenic stroke. Recent evidence has been published on the effectiveness of PFO closure, including a publicly funded prospective study on the effectiveness of PFO closure for preventing recurrent stroke or transient ischemic attack in selected Korean patients who have experienced cryptogenic stroke. The objective of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of PFO closure using this recent evidence.Methods:Available clinical data from the aforementioned Korean prospective study and other recent multicenter trials funded by public bodies were used. The cost data were obtained from the current Korean National Health Insurance fee schedule. Utility data were extracted from local research on stroke patients. A cost-effectiveness analysis, based on a 20-year Markov model, was conducted using these data to compare PFO closure plus antiplatelet therapy with oral anticoagulants alone.Results:The initial analysis showed that PFO plus antiplatelet therapy costs KRW 7.13 million (USD 6,547) more than oral anticoagulants alone but has a higher utility of 1.3 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient, which corresponds to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of KRW 5.6 million (USD 5,142) per QALY. The implicit Korean ICER threshold is KRW 25 million (USD 22,955) for non-cancer drugs, so it seems that PFO plus antiplatelet therapy is cost effective in the Korean setting.Conclusions:Since this study used some transition probabilities from foreign sources, the results may not be completely transferable to the Korean setting. However, this is the best available evidence so far in Korea for the economic evaluation of the PFO closure procedure. Therefore, use of PFO closure in carefully selected patients with a history of cryptogenic stroke may benefit the public payer in Korea.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document