Cost Effectiveness of Implantable Cardiac Monitor‐Guided Intermittent Anticoagulation for Atrial Fibrillation: An Analysis of the REACT.COM Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Anticoagulation guidelines for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) disregard AF burden. A strategy of targeted anticoagulation with novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) based on continuous rhythm assessment with an implantable cardiac monitor (ICM) has recently been explored. We evaluated the potential cost-effectiveness of this strategy versus projected outcomes with continuous anticoagulation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We developed a Markov model using data from the Rhythm Evaluation for AntiCoagulaTion With COntinuous Monitoring (REACT.COM) pilot study (N = 59) and prior NOAC trials to calculate the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with ICM-guided intermittent anticoagulation for AF versus standard care during a 3-year time horizon. Health state utilities were estimated from the pilot study population using the SF-12. Costs were based on current Medicare reimbursement. Over 14 ± 4 months of follow-up, 18 of 59 patients had 35 AF episodes. The ICM-guided strategy resulted in a 94% reduction in anticoagulant use relative to continuous treatment. There were no strokes, 3 (5.1%) TIAs, 2 major bleeding events (on aspirin) and 3 minor bleeding events with the ICM-guided strategy. The projected total 3-year costs were $12,535 for the ICM-guided strategy versus $13,340 for continuous anticoagulation. Projected QALYs were 2.45 for both groups. CONCLUSION: Based on a pilot study, a strategy of ICM-guided anticoagulation with NOACs may be cost-saving relative to expected outcomes with continuous anticoagulation, with similar quality-adjusted survival. This strategy could be attractive from a health economic perspective if shown to be safe and effective in a rigorous clinical trial.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".