NEW HAVEN, Conn., June 16 (UPI) -- A device was shown to be more cost-effective than medication at preventing blood clots during irregular heartbeat, and also may prove to me more effective in longer-term studies, according to researchers.
Implanting The Watchman device in the hearts of patients with irregular heartbeat was more cost effective than medications such as warfarin, researchers at Yale University report, further suggesting the device could prove to be preferable clinically.
The Watchman is implanted in the opening of the left atrial appendage of the heart, where a thin layer of tissue grows over it, preventing blood clots from forming during an irregular heart rhythm, called atrial fibrillation -- which also prevents clots from circulating in the bloodstream and causing a stroke.
While warfarin, a blood thinner, is commonly used to prevent the formation of blood clots, the drug increases the risk of bleeding and adverse health events.
Related
Researchers say eliminating this risk, which would have to be established with longer-term studies of patients, could make the device preferable to the medication.
The researchers conducted two studies, published in the journal Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, Percutaneous Closure of the Left Atrial Appendage Versus Warfarin Therapy for Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation, or PROTECT AF, and Prospective Randomized Evaluation of the Watchman LAA Closure Device in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation, or PREVAIL, finding varied but encouraging results.
In the PROTECT AF study, the researchers found The Watchman was more cost-effective than using warfarin or another similar drug called dabigatran, but in the PREVAIL study the device was more costly and less effective than the drugs.
"What we know is that the PROTECT AF trial enrolled more patients and has longer follow-up at this time and this allows greater statistical certainty," Dr. James Freeman, an assistant professor of cardiology at Yale University, said in a press release. "Based on that, the study may provide more certainty in terms of cost-effectiveness."
Cost aside, however, the researchers say longer term studies of the device are needed to determine if it is more effective than medication for managing the condition.
