Division of Cardiology, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2024 Apr;10(4):718-730. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2023.12.011. Epub 2024 Feb 28.
Integrating patient-specific cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED)-detected atrial fibrillation (AF) burden with measures of health care cost and utilization allows for an accurate assessment of the AF-related impact on health care use.
The goal of this study was to assess the incremental cost of device-recognized AF vs no AF; compare relative costs of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (pAF), persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF), and permanent atrial fibrillation (PermAF) AF; and evaluate rates and sources of health care utilization between cohorts.
Using the de-identified Optum Clinformatics U.S. claims database (2015-2020) linked with the Medtronic CareLink database, CIED patients were identified who transmitted data ≥6 months postimplantation. Annualized per-patient costs in follow-up were analyzed from insurance claims and adjusted to 2020 U.S. dollars. Costs and rates of health care utilization were compared between patients with no AF and those with device-recognized pAF, PeAF, and PermAF. Analyses were adjusted for geographical region, insurance type, CHADS-VASc score, and implantation year.
Of 21,391 patients (mean age 72.9 ± 10.9 years; 56.3% male) analyzed, 7,798 (36.5%) had device-recognized AF. The incremental annualized increased cost in those with AF was $12,789 ± $161,749 per patient, driven by increased rates of health care encounters, adverse clinical events associated with AF, and AF-specific interventions. Among those with AF, PeAF was associated with the highest cost, driven by increased rates of inpatient and outpatient hospitalization encounters, heart failure hospitalizations, and AF-specific interventions.
Presence of device-recognized AF was associated with increased health care cost. Among those with AF, patients with PeAF had the highest health care costs. Mechanisms for cost differentials include both disease-specific consequences and physician-directed interventions.
将患者特定的心脏植入式电子设备(CIED)检测到的心房颤动(AF)负担与医疗保健成本和利用措施相结合,可以准确评估 AF 对医疗保健利用的影响。
本研究的目的是评估设备识别的 AF 与无 AF 的增量成本;比较阵发性心房颤动(pAF)、持续性心房颤动(PeAF)和永久性心房颤动(PermAF)的相对成本;并评估队列之间的医疗保健利用率和来源。
使用去识别的 Optum Clinformatics 美国索赔数据库(2015-2020 年)与美敦力 CareLink 数据库链接,确定在植入后至少 6 个月传输数据的 CIED 患者。从保险索赔中分析了随访期间每位患者的年化成本,并调整为 2020 年的美元。比较了无 AF 和设备识别的 pAF、PeAF 和 PermAF 患者之间的成本和医疗保健利用率。分析调整了地理位置、保险类型、CHADS-VASc 评分和植入年份。
在 21391 名患者(平均年龄 72.9 ± 10.9 岁;56.3%为男性)中,7798 名(36.5%)患者有设备识别的 AF。AF 患者的年化增量成本增加了 12789 美元,每位患者的成本增加了 161749 美元,这是由于医疗保健接触次数增加、与 AF 相关的不良临床事件以及 AF 特异性干预措施所致。在 AF 患者中,PeAF 与最高成本相关,这是由于住院和门诊住院就诊、心力衰竭住院和 AF 特异性干预的发生率增加所致。
设备识别的 AF 的存在与医疗保健成本的增加有关。在 AF 患者中,PeAF 患者的医疗保健费用最高。成本差异的机制包括疾病特异性后果和医生指导的干预措施。