Cost-effectiveness of amiodarone for prophylaxis of atrial fibrillation incoronary artery bypass surgery

Citation
P. Reddy et al., Cost-effectiveness of amiodarone for prophylaxis of atrial fibrillation incoronary artery bypass surgery, AM J HEAL S, 56(21), 1999, pp. 2211-2217
Citations number
30
Categorie Soggetti
Pharmacology,"Pharmacology & Toxicology
Journal title
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH-SYSTEM PHARMACY
ISSN journal
10792082 → ACNP
Volume
56
Issue
21
Year of publication
1999
Pages
2211 - 2217
Database
ISI
SICI code
1079-2082(19991101)56:21<2211:COAFPO>2.0.ZU;2-L
Abstract
The cost-effectiveness of amiodarone prophylaxis of atrial fibrillation (AF ) in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) was determi ned. A decision analysis using current hospital data and values from the literat ure was conducted. Under the base-case scenario, CABG patients received usu al care (no prophylaxis) or 2 g of oral amiodarone hydrochloride over one t o three days before surgery and 400 mg daily for seven days after surgery. Costs of hospitalization in the intensive care unit (ICU) and the cardiac s tep-down unit (SDU), cardioversion costs, electrocardiogram costs, drug cos ts, nursing administration charges, and pharmacy i.v. admixture charges wer e included. A sensitivity analysis using a Monte Carlo simulation and a one -way sensitivity analysis were performed. The mean cost per AF event avoided was lower in the amiodarone group ($15,7 50, 95% confidence interval [CI]: $15,591-$15,999) than the control group ( $17,426, 95% CI: $17,252-$17,600). A majority of the cost difference was du e to the cost of hospitalization for patients without AF, the frequency of AF, and the cost of hospitalization in the SDU for patients with AF. For pa tients treated with amiodarone who did not develop AF, the cost difference was sensitive to changes in the cost of hospitalization and the efficacy of amiodarone. For patients who did develop AF, the cost difference was robus t. Prophylaxis of AF with amiodarone in CABG patients was more cost-effective than usual care in the short term from a hospital perspective; the results were sensitive to changes in the cost of hospitalization of patients who di d not develop AF and the efficacy of amiodarone.