636
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Cardiovascular

Cost-effectiveness of Left Atrial Appendage Closure with WATCHMAN device for non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients in Japan. Are the policy implications big in Japan?

ORCID Icon
Pages 1301-1302 | Received 20 Aug 2023, Accepted 18 Sep 2023, Published online: 20 Oct 2023

References

  • Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage versus warfarin therapy for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation: a randomized non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2009;374:534–542.
  • Reddy VY, Holmes D, Doshi SK, et al. Safety of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure: results from the Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients with AF (PROTECT AF) clinical trial and the Continued Access Registry. Circulation. 2011;123(4):417–424. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.976449.
  • Reddy VY, Doshi SK, Kar S, et al. 5-year outcomes after left atrial appendage closure: from the PREVAIL and PROTECT AF trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70(24):2964–2975. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.10.021.
  • Holmes DR Jr, Kar S, Price MJ, et al. Prospective randomized evaluation of the Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure device in patients with atrial fibrillation versus long-term warfarin therapy: the PREVAIL trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(1):1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.04.029.
  • Kamae I, Zhong Y, Hara H, et al. Cost-effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure with WATCHMAN for non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients in Japan. J Med Econ. Submitted
  • Aonuma K, Yamasaki H, Nakamura M, et al. Percutaneous WATCHMAN left atrial appendage closure for japanese patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at increased risk of thromboembolism – first results from the SALUTE trial. Circ J. 2018;82(12):2946–2953. Page 17 of 36 doi: 10.1253/circj.CJ-18-0222.
  • Naganuma M, Shiga T, Sato K, et al. Clinical outcome in Japanese elderly patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation taking warfarin: a single-center observational study. Thromb Res. 2012;130(1):21–26. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2011.11.005.
  • Lee VW, Tsai RB, Chow IH, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of left atrial appendage occlusion compared with pharmacological strategies for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2016;16(1):167. PMID: 27581874; PMCID: PMC5007846 doi: 10.1186/s12872-016-0351-y.
  • Kreidieh B, Mañero MR, Cortez SH, et al. The cost effectiveness of LAA exclusion. J Atr Fibrillation. 2016;8(5):1374. PMID: 27909482; PMCID: PMC5089495. doi: 10.4022/jafib.1374.
  • Glikson M, Wolff R, Hindricks G, et al. EHRA/EAPCI expert consensus statement on catheter-based left atrial appendage occlusion - an update. Europace. 2020;22(2):184–184. Epub 2019 Aug 31. PMID: 31504441. doi: 10.1093/europace/euz258.
  • Kipp R, Lehman J, Israel J, et al. Patient preferences for coronary artery bypass graft surgery or percutaneous intervention in multivessel coronary artery disease. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;82(2):212–218. Epub 2013 May 6. PMID: 22517566; PMCID: PMC4180283. doi: 10.1002/ccd.24399.