Cost-Effectiveness of Patent Foramen Ovale Closure Versus Medical Therapy for Secondary Stroke Prevention
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Background and Purpose—Percutaneous transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO closure) plus antiplatelet therapy has been shown to reduce the risk of recurrent stroke compared with medical therapy alone in carefully selected patients after cryptogenic stroke presumed to be from paradoxical embolism. Our objective was to determine the cost-effectiveness of PFO closure after cryptogenic stroke compared with conservative medical management from a US healthcare payer perspective.
Methods—A decision analytic Markov model estimated the 15-year cost and outcomes associated with the additional benefit of PFO closure compared with medical management alone. Model inputs were obtained from published literature, national databases, and a meta-analysis of 5 published randomized clinical trials on PFO closure. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Cost-effectiveness used the incremental cost per QALY gained, whereas the net monetary benefit assumed a willingness to pay of $150 000/QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses estimated the uncertainty of model results.
Results—At 15 years, PFO closure compared with medical therapy alone improved QALY by 0.33 at a cost saving of $3568, representing an incremental net monetary benefit of $52 761 (95% interval −$8284 to $158 910). When the meta-analysis hazard ratio for stroke was increased to the 95% interval’s upper bound of 0.77, one-way sensitivity analyses suggested that PFO closure’s cost-effectiveness was $458 558 per additional QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested cost-effectiveness in 90% of simulation runs.
Conclusions—PFO closure for cryptogenic strokes in the right setting is cost-effective, producing benefit in QALYs gained and potential cost savings. However, patient selection remains vitally important as marginal declines in treatment effectiveness can dramatically affect cost-effectiveness.
- Received December 4, 2017.
- Revision received March 29, 2018.
- Accepted March 30, 2018.
- © 2018 American Heart Association, Inc.