Pmd2 Implantable Cardiac Monitors (Biomonitor 2-Af, Confirm Rx Insertable Cardiac Monitor and Reveal Linq Insertable Cardiac Monitoring System) to Detect Atrial Fibrillation After Cryptogenic Stroke: A Systematic Review

Wakefield, Victoria; Edwards, Susan; Kew, Kayleigh M; Jhita, Tracey; Cain, Peter; Marceniuk, Gemma

doi:10.1016/j.jval.2019.09.1415

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The study design inclusion criteria were therefore relaxed to also allow inclusion of single-arm observational studies for any of the three ICM devices and their earlier models, and the review protocol was amended. 33 The rationale for choosing to amend the study design inclusion criteria rather than another part of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome inclusion criteria was that the current searches limited studies by their population and interventions only. The interventions are already unrestricted in terms of the model of the devices specified in the NICE final scope for the review 1 and so no further changes could be made to broaden the included interventions.…”

Section: Eligibility Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Implantable cardiac monitors to detect atrial fibrillation after cryptogenic stroke: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Edwards

Wakefield

Jhita

et al. 2020

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Cryptogenic stroke is a stroke for which no cause is identified after standard diagnostic tests. Long-term implantable cardiac monitors may be better at diagnosing atrial fibrillation and provide an opportunity to reduce the risk of stroke recurrence with anticoagulants. Objectives The objectives were to assess the diagnostic test accuracy, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three implantable monitors [BioMonitor 2-AF™ (Biotronik SE & Co. KG, Berlin, Germany), Confirm Rx™ (Abbott Laboratories, Lake Bluff, IL, USA) and Reveal LINQ™ (Medtronic plc, Minneapolis, MN, USA)] in patients who have had a cryptogenic stroke and for whom no atrial fibrillation is detected after 24 hours of external electrocardiographic monitoring. Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment databases were searched from inception until September 2018. Review methods A systematic review was undertaken. Two reviewers agreed on studies for inclusion and performed quality assessment using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Results were discussed narratively because there were insufficient data for synthesis. A two-stage de novo economic model was developed: (1) a short-term patient flow model to identify cryptogenic stroke patients who have had atrial fibrillation detected and been prescribed anticoagulation treatment (rather than remaining on antiplatelet treatment) and (2) a long-term Markov model that captured the lifetime costs and benefits of patients on either anticoagulation or antiplatelet treatment. Results One randomised controlled trial, Cryptogenic Stroke and underlying Atrial Fibrillation (CRYSTAL-AF) (Sanna T, Diener HC, Passman RS, Di Lazzaro V, Bernstein RA, Morillo CA, et al. Cryptogenic stroke and underlying atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2014;370:2478–86), was identified, and no diagnostic test accuracy study was identified. The CRYSTAL-AF trial compared the Reveal™ XT (a Reveal LINQ predecessor) (Medtronic plc) monitor with standard of care monitoring. Twenty-six single-arm observational studies for the Reveal devices were also identified. The only data for BioMonitor 2-AF or Confirm Rx were from mixed population studies supplied by the companies. Atrial fibrillation detection in the CRYSTAL-AF trial was higher with the Reveal XT than with standard monitoring at all time points. By 36 months, atrial fibrillation was detected in 19% of patients with an implantable cardiac monitor and in 2.3% of patients receiving conventional follow-up. The 26 observational studies demonstrated that, even in a cryptogenic stroke population, atrial fibrillation detection rates are highly variable and most cases are asymptomatic; therefore, they probably would not have been picked up without an implantable cardiac monitor. Device-related adverse events, such as pain and infection, were low in all studies. The de novo economic model produced incremental cost effectiveness ratios comparing implantable cardiac monitors with standard of care monitoring to detect atrial fibrillation in cryptogenic stroke patients based on data for the Reveal XT device, which can be related to Reveal LINQ. The BioMonitor 2-AF and Confirm RX were included in the analysis by making a strong assumption of equivalence with Reveal LINQ. The results indicate that implantable cardiac monitors could be considered cost-effective at a £20,000–30,000 threshold. When each device is compared incrementally, BioMonitor 2-AF dominates Reveal LINQ and Confirm RX. Limitations The cost-effectiveness analysis for implantable cardiac monitors is based on a strong assumption of clinical equivalence and should be interpreted with caution. Conclusions All three implantable cardiac monitors could be considered cost-effective at a £20,000–30,000 threshold, compared with standard of care monitoring, for cryptogenic stroke patients with no atrial fibrillation detected after 24 hours of external electrocardiographic monitoring; however, further clinical studies are required to confirm their efficacy in cryptogenic stroke patients. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018109216. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

show abstract

Section: Eligibility Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%