Our sub study was designed to analyze the cost effectiveness of two alternative treatment strategies with a view to improved allocation of the limited therapeutic resources. To that effect we conducted detailed analysis of the related costs and other relevant data collected in the course of the HOT CAFE study.
Methods: The prospective costs related to 205 patients randomly assigned to rhythm or rate control were traced over a 12 month period. Since, both strategies produced similar clinical outcomes a cost minimization analysis was undertaken. The cost of diagnostic and treatment procedures, including hospitalization, outpatient visits, drugs and physicians consultations were estimated for both groups.
Results: The study population comprised 205 patients (mean age 60.8 year; 35% females). A hundred and one patients were randomly assigned to the rate control group with the pharmacological heart rate frequency optimization treatment combined with Holter monitoring. A hundred and four patients were randomized to sinus rhythm (SR) restoration with its subsequent maintenance with sequential antiarrhythmic drug treatment. There was no significant difference in the composite primary end-point (all-cause mortality, number of thromboembolic and major bleeding events). The hospital admissions rate was significantly higher in the rhythm control than the rate control arm (202 vs. 5, respectively). The conservative strategy involving pharmacological ventricular rate control proved to be less costly than rhythm control (1225 euros vs. 2526 euros; p<0.001). The main cost driver behind the established difference was the cardioversion related hospitalization.
Conclusions: The cost effectiveness appraisal seems to have supported the rate control strategy as less costly due to the lower hospitalization rate as a major cost carrier.