Cost effectiveness of inpatient initiation of antiarrhythmic therapy for supraventricular tachycardias

Antiarrhythmic drug loading at home using remote monitoring: a virtual feasibility study during COVID-19 social distancing

The epidemiological necessity for distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in postponement of non-emergent hospitalizations and increase use of telemedicine. The feasibility of virtual antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) loading specifically with digital QTc electrocardiographic monitoring (EM) in conjunction with telemedicine video visits is not well established.

We tested the hypothesis that existing digital health technologies and virtual communication platforms could provide EM and support medically guided AAD loading for patients with symptomatic tachyarrhythmia in the ambulatory setting, while reducing physical contact between patient and healthcare system.

A prospective pilot, case series approved by the institutional ethics committee, entailing three subjects with symptomatic arrhythmia during the COVID-19 pandemic who were enrolled for virtual AAD loading at home. Clinicians met with participants twice daily via video visits conducted after QTc analysis (Kardia 6L mobile sensor) and telemetry review (Mobile Cardiac Outpatient Telemetry of silent arrhythmias). Participants received direct instruction to either terminate the study or proceed with the next single dose of AAD.

All participants completed contactless loading of 5 AAD doses, without untoward event. Scheduled video visits allowed dialogue and participant counseling where decision making was guided by remote review of EM. Participant adherence with transmissions and scheduled visits was 98.3%; a single electrocardiogram was delayed beyond the two-hours-post-dose schedule. This virtual approach reduced overall expenditures based on retrospective comparison with previous AAD load hospitalizations.

We found that a ‘virtual hospitalization’ for AAD loading with remote electrocardiographic monitoring and twice daily virtual rounding is feasible using existing digital health technologies.

Cost of Hospital Admission for Antiarrhythmic Drug Initiation in Atrial Fibrillation

Background

Initiation of some rhythm-control therapies for atrial fibrillation (AF) requires an inpatient hospital stay and telemetry monitoring, adding to the cost burden of AF. However, specific cost data for inpatient initiation of AF therapies are lacking.

Objective

To examine costs associated with initiating sotalol or dofetilide in the inpatient setting in the US.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study used data from billing/discharge records in the Premier Perspective Database for adults with a primary diagnosis of AF, hospitalized between January 2002 and September 2007. Patients had to have received 4 or more sotalol doses or 5 or more dofetilide doses starting within 2 days of admission (with ≥1 dose within 3 days of discharge). Patients admitted solely for AF drug initiation were identified by excluding patients who were admitted on an emergency basis, received care in the emergency department, or underwent major surgical procedures. The primary outcome was direct medical costs for in-hospital services during the stay.

Results

Among 7290 patients included in the analysis (4847 sotalol, 2443 dofetilide), mean total inpatient costs per patient were $3278 in the sotalol group and $3610 in the dofetilide group. The greatest costs were for room/board ($1874 sotalol, $1985 dofetilide) and cardiology/electrocardiograms ($394 sotalol, $443 dofetilide). Pharmacy costs were $230 and $201 per patient in the sotalol and dofetilide groups, respectively.

Conclusions

The admission of patients for in-hospital initiation of AF rhythm-control therapy represents a high cost burden in the US.

QTc prolongation assessment in anticancer drug development: clinical and methodological issues

Cardiac safety assessments are commonly employed in the clinical development of investigational oncology medications. In anti-cancer drug development there has been increasing consideration for the potential of a compound to cause adverse electrocardiographic changes, especially QT interval prolongation, which can be associated with risk of torsades de pointes and sudden death. Irrespective of overt clinical toxicities, QTc assessment can potentially influence decision making at many levels during the conduct of clinical studies, including eligibility for protocol therapy, dose delivery or discontinuation, and analyses of optimal dose for subsequent development. Given the potential for serious and irreversible morbidity from cardiac adverse events, it is understandable that cardiac safety results can have broad impact on study conduct and patient management. The methodologies for risk management of QTc prolongation for non cardiac drugs have been developed out of experiences primarily from drugs used to treat non life-threatening illnesses in a chronic setting such as antibiotics or antihistamines. Extrapolating these approaches to drugs for treating cancer over an acute period may not be appropriate. Few specific guidelines are available for risk management of cardiac safety in the development and use of oncology drugs. In this manuscript, clinical and methodological issues related to QTc prolongation assessment will be reviewed. Discussions about limitations in phase-I design and oncology drug development will be highlighted. Efforts are needed to refine strategies for risk management, avoiding unintended consequences that negatively affect patient access and clinical development of promising new cancer treatments. A thoughtful risk management plan generated by an organized collaboration between oncologists, cardiologists, and regulatory agencies to support a development programme essential for oncology agents with cardiac safety concerns.

Cost of care distribution in atrial fibrillation patients: the COCAF study

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) currently represents a major economic burden for society. Very few studies have been performed to evaluate the cost of care for AF patients. This study is a large prospective survey designed to analyze the different cost drivers in the treatment of these patients. This survey, named Cost of Care in Atrial Fibrillation (COCAF), evaluated the cost of care for patients with AF treated by cardiologists in general office practice.

METHODS

A group of 671 patients was recruited by 82 cardiologists distributed in all regions of France. The mean age of the patients was 69 years, and 64% were male. The mean follow-up was 329 +/- 120 days. The costs of care were analyzed from the health care payer and the societal perspectives.

RESULTS

During the follow-up period, 21 patients (3.13%) died and 210 (31.3%) patients were hospitalized. The number of hospitalizations and deaths was significantly higher in the group of persistent or permanent AF (PEAF) patients, as compared to paroxysmal AF (PAAF) patients. Hospitalizations were much more frequent in the PEAF group (127) than in the PAAF group (83, P <.05). Deaths were also much more frequent in the PEAF group (17) as compared to the PAAF group (4, P <.001). From the societal perspective, the first cost driver was hospitalizations (52%), followed by drugs (23%), consultations (9%), further investigations (8%), loss of work (6%), and paramedical procedures (2%). In multivariate analysis the following parameters were significantly associated with higher costs: heart failure (P <.04), coronary artery disease (P <.001), use of class III antiarrhythmic drugs (P <.002), hypertension (P <.002) and metabolic disease (P <.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective survey shows that hospitalizations represent the major cost driver in the treatment of AF patients. Outpatient care programs must be proposed to AF patients in order to avoid readmissions and to reduce the cost of treatment.

Old and new antiarrhythmic drugs for converting and maintaining sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation: comparative efficacy and results of trials

In managing atrial fibrillation (AF), the main therapeutic strategies include rate control, termination of the arrhythmia, and the prevention of recurrences and thromboembolic events. Safety and efficacy considerations are important in optimizing the choice of an antiarrhythmic drug for the treatment of AF. Recently approved antiarrhythmics, such as dofetilide, and promising investigational drugs, such as azimilide and dronedarone, may change the treatment landscape for AF. For medical conversion of recent-onset AF, class IC antiarrhythmic drugs, administered as an oral bolus, have been demonstrated to be the most efficacious pharmacologic conversion agents. Intravenous ibutilide and oral dofetilide both have efficacies superior to placebo in controlled trials for converting persistent AF. Comparative trials in paroxysmal AF have demonstrated that flecainide, propafenone, quinidine, and sotalol are equally effective in preventing recurrences of AF. Amiodarone has been demonstrated to be more efficacious than propafenone or sotalol in the Canadian Trial of Atrial Fibrillation. In persistent AF, twice-daily dofetilide has been shown to be as or more effective than low-dose sotalol given twice daily for the maintenance of sinus rhythm in patients with AF. Trials have demonstrated that subjective adverse effects are less frequent with class IC drugs, sotalol, and dofetilide compared with such drugs as quinidine. In patients without structural heart disease, flecainide, propafenone, and D,L-sotalol are the initial drugs of choice, given their reasonable efficacy, low incidence of subjective side effects, and lack of significant end-organ toxicity. Treating AF in patients with left ventricular dysfunction can be difficult because of associated electrophysiologic derangements, potential proarrhythmic concerns, and negative inotropic effects of antiarrhythmics. Some data exist suggesting that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers can prevent AF either by preventing atrial dilation and stretch-induced arrhythmias or by blocking the renin-angiotensin system. In post-myocardial infarction patients, D,L-sotalol, dofetilide, and amiodarone-and in congestive heart failure patients, amiodarone and dofetilide-have demonstrated neutral effects on survival in controlled trials. In the Congestive Heart Failure Survival Trial of Antiarrhythmic Therapy (CHF-STAT), amiodarone lowered the frequency of AF development and improved left ventricular ejection fraction over time. In CHF-STAT, there was lower mortality in patients who converted from AF to sinus rhythm. Dofetilide decreased rehospitalization for congestive heart failure in the Danish Investigations of Arrhythmia and Mortality on Dofetilide (DIAMOND) trials. Neutral effects on survival and favorable hemodynamics have positioned amiodarone and dofetilide as the antiarrhythmics of choice in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. In post-myocardial infarction patients, sotalol is an additional agent to consider for treatment of AF in this setting.

Maintaining stability of sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation: antiarrhythmic drugs versus ablation

In managing atrial fibrillation, the main therapeutic strategies include rate control, termination of the arrhythmia, and pr vention of recurrences and thromboembolic events. Rate control with digoxin, b-blockers, verapamil, and diltiazem may be preferred in drug refractory and sedentary patients with markedly dilated left atrium and atrial fibrillation of long duration. Drugs useful in the maintenance of sinus rhythm include quinidine, procainamide, disopyramide, sotalol, amiodarone, dofetilide, flecainide, and propafenone. In patients with structural heart disease, the class III antiarrhythmics are the initial drugs of choice, given their neutral effects on survival in a post-myocardial infarction and congestive heart failure population. Due to high recurrence rates with pharmacologic therapy, nonpharmacologic options of therapy include atrioventricular junction ablation, atrial defibrillators, catheter ablation of pulmonary vein foci, and attempts to perform an atrial Maze procedure using catheters. Hybrid therapy using drugs in combination with nonpharmacologic approaches will be used more frequently in the future for refractory patients.

Inpatient or outpatient initiation of antiarrhythmic medications: why the controversy?

The decision of whether to initiate antiarrhythmic medications in or out of the hospital for patients with atrial fibrillation remains an issue of significant controversy. The current review analyzes the available data pertaining to the safety of antiarrhythmic agent initiation in patients with atrial fibrillation and provides a practice guideline.

Cost effectiveness of therapies for atrial fibrillation. A review

Atrial fibrillation is the most common supraventricular tachyarrhythmia encountered in clinical practice, affecting over 5% of persons over the age of 65 years. A common pathophysiological mechanism for arrhythmia development is atrial distention and fibrosis induced by hypertension, coronary artery disease or ventricular dysfunction. Less frequently, atrial fibrillation is caused by mitral stenosis or other provocative factors such as thyrotoxicosis, pericarditis or alcohol intoxication. Depending on the extent of associated cardiovascular disease, atrial fibrillation may produce haemodynamic compromise, or symptoms such as palpitations, fatigue, chest pain or dyspnoea. Arrhythmia-induced atrial stasis can precipitate clot formation and the potential for subsequent thromboembolism. Comprehensive management of atrial fibrillation requires a multifaceted approach directed at controlling symptoms, protecting the patient from ischaemic stroke or peripheral embolism and possible conversion to or maintenance of sinus rhythm. Numerous randomised trials have demonstrated the efficacy of warfarin--and less so aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid)--in reducing the risk of embolic events. Furthermore, therapeutic strategies exist that can favourably modify symptoms by restoring and maintaining sinus rhythm with cardioversion and antiarrhythmic prophylaxis. However, the risks and benefits of various treatments is highly dependent on patient-specific features, emphasising the need for an individualised approach. This article reviews the findings of cost-effectiveness studies published over the past decade that have evaluated different components of treatment strategies for atrial fibrillation. These studies demonstrate the economic attractiveness of acute management options, long term warfarin prophylaxis, telemetry-guided initiation of antiarrhythmic therapy, approaches to restore and maintain sinus rhythm, and the potential role of transoesophageal echocardiographic screening for atrial thrombus prior to pharmacological or electrical cardioversion. Further, we discuss the merits and limitations of the cost-effectiveness analyses in the context of overall treatment strategies. Finally, we identify areas that will require additional research to achieve the goal of effective and economically efficient management of atrial fibrillation.

Management of atrial fibrillation: therapeutic options and clinical decisions

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common, sustained tachyarrhythmia seen in clinical practice. Although it is not immediately life threatening, AF can cause troublesome symptoms and poses a risk of stroke. The patient's clinical status is often complicated by the presence of other cardiovascular or concomitant diseases. As a result, management of the patient with AF involves many questions and choices, all of which must be individualized. There are 3 general strategies for the management of patients with AF, including (1) restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm, (2) control of ventricular rate, and (3) prevention of stroke. More than 1 strategy may be appropriate in some patients. Furthermore, either pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic options can be chosen in certain situations. Although some data from randomized clinical trials are available to aid in clinical decision-making, only the benefits of anticoagulation are supported by substantial evidence. This article explores practical approaches to several management issues and scenarios for which there are limited relevant clinical data. These include: (1) patient selection for ventricular rate control and assessment of treatment, (2) choice of antiarrhythmic drug for maintenance of sinus rhythm, (3) inpatient versus outpatient initiation of therapy, (4) definition of antiarrhythmic drug success, (5) methods of transthoracic direct cardioversion, and (6) prediction and prevention of AF after cardiac surgery.

Inpatient versus outpatient antiarrhythmic drug initiation: safety and cost-effectiveness issues

Debate exists as to the proper site for initiating antiarrhythmic therapy for supraventricular tachyarrhythmias and other benign forms of ectopy: inpatient versus outpatient. Rapid detection of efficacy and adverse effects, with immediate correction of the latter, favors the inpatient site. Convenience and, under most circumstances, lower cost favor the outpatient site. Circumstances under which adverse event rates, including proarrhythmia, are expectedly low, would favor outpatient initiation. So would the use of an agent whose elimination half-life is so long as to render in-hospital monitoring to steady state highly impractical. Accordingly, outpatient initiation would be suitable for patients without structural heart disease receiving class IC drugs, patients with low risk for torsades de pointes receiving selected class III agents, in whom data in the literature are supportive (as has occurred with sotalol and azimilide), and patients who are to receive amiodarone. Transtelephonic electrocardiographic monitoring can be used to facilitate assessment in the outpatient setting. Inpatient initiation should be considered for patients with underlying sinus node or atrioventricular conduction disturbances, for patients with significant structural heart disease, for patients receiving a drug whose proarrhythmia may be idiosyncratic (e.g., quinidine), and for patients who are to begin an antiarrhythmic drug while in a supraventricular tachyarrhythmia in whom sinus rhythm has not previously been seen. The relative costs and benefits of the approach chosen will be a reflection of the probability that a drug with a chosen mechanism will cause an adverse outcome in a patient with a specific clinical substrate during the period chosen for monitoring.

Antiarrhythmic drug initiation in patients with atrial fibrillation

Antiarrhythmic drugs remain the mainstay of treatment of atrial fibrillation, but their potential proarrhythmic effects hamper their optimal use. Drug-induced tachyarrhythmias (ventricular tachycardia or atrial tachyarrhythmias with rapid ventricular response) are life-threatening and often cause syncope. Because these events tend to cluster shortly after drug initiation, it is common practice to routinely hospitalize patients for drug initiation under continuous electrocardiographic surveillance. The low incidence of serious proarrhythmia makes the cost-effectiveness of this practice controversial. Torsades de pointes, in particular, can be predicted by the presence of one or more of the following risk factors: female gender, structural heart disease, prolonged baseline QT interval, bradycardia, hypokalemia, previous proarrhythmic responses, and higher drug plasma levels. Proarrhythmia induced by class IC agents is seen almost exclusively in patients with structural heart disease and ventricular dysfunction. A variety of monitoring devices permit electrocardiographic monitoring of patients in the outpatient setting. Efficient clinical pathways for the safe initiation of antiarrhythmic drugs in patients with atrial fibrillation do not require universal hospital admission. In patients without structural heart disease, outpatient initiation of most antiarrhythmic drugs appears safe. In patients with significant structural heart disease, class IC drugs are contraindicated, and most other drugs should be initiated in the hospital under continuous monitoring. The incidence of severe proarrhythmia is very low when loading doses of amiodarone of 600 mg/d or less are given to outpatients with structural heart disease.

Atrial fibrillation trials: will they teach us what we need to know?

Atrial fibrillation (AF) has captured the imagination of clinical investigators who have initiated trials to examine several aspects of this multifaceted arrhythmia. We will review the protocol designs of ongoing trials that are examining the relative value of rhythm versus rate control, new methods for pharmacologic restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm (including prophylaxis after cardiac surgery), and nonpharmacologic interventions such as pacing and atrial defibrillation. We antic ipate that the results of these studies will have a major impact on the care of patients with AF in the new millennium.