Aims: Comparing actual management costs in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) treated with percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) or OAC only. Methods and results:... Show moreAims: Comparing actual management costs in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) treated with percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) or OAC only. Methods and results: Patients undergoing percutaneous LAAC and AF patients treated with OAC only were matched for gender, age, and diagnosis related groups (DRG) clinical complexity level (CCL). Costs for cardiovascular outpatient clinic visits and hospitalizations were derived from the actual reimbursement records. Between 1/2012 and 12/2016, 8478 patients were referred: 7801 (92%) managed with OAC and 677 (8%) with percutaneous LAAC. Matching resulted in 558 patients (279 per group) for final analysis. Age was 74.9 +/- 7.5 years, 244 were female (43.7%), and DRG CCL was 1.8 +/- 1.1.Annualized management cost before percutaneous LAAC was (sic) 3110 (IQR: (sic) 1281-8127). After 4.5 +/- 1.4 years follow-up, annualized management cost was (sic) 1297 (IQR: (sic) 607-2735) in OAC patients and (sic) 1013 (IQR: (sic) 0-4770) in patients after percutaneous LAAC (p = 0.003). Percutaneous LAAC was the strongest independent determinant to reduce follow-up costs (B =-0.8; CI: 1.09-0.6; p < 0.0001). Estimated 3-year survival was 92% in percutaneous LAAC and 90% in OAC patients (p = 0.7). Conclusion: Percutaneous LAAC significantly reduces management costs. Management costs are significantly higher for patients treated with only OAC compared to patients after percutaneous LAAC. In spite of their complex comorbid profile, percutaneous LAAC patients show a follow-up survival rate similar to patients solely treated with OAC. Future studies are necessary to investigate the potential net economic and clinical benefit of percutaneous LAAC in patients treated with OAC only. Show less
