↓ Skip to main content

Cost-Effectiveness and Clinical Effectiveness of the Risk Factor Management Clinic in Atrial Fibrillation

Overview of attention for article published in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#19 of 373)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
72 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cost-Effectiveness and Clinical Effectiveness of the Risk Factor Management Clinic in Atrial Fibrillation
Published in
JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology, March 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jacep.2016.12.015
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rajeev K. Pathak, Michelle Evans, Melissa E. Middeldorp, Rajiv Mahajan, Abhinav B. Mehta, Megan Meredith, Darragh Twomey, Christopher X. Wong, Jeroen M.L. Hendriks, Walter P. Abhayaratna, Jonathan M. Kalman, Dennis H. Lau, Prashanthan Sanders

Abstract

Atrial fibrillation (AF) imposes a substantial cost burden on the healthcare system. Weight and risk factor management (RFM) reduces AF burden and improves the outcomes of AF ablation. This study sought to evaluate the cost and clinical effectiveness of integrating RFM into the overall management of AF. Of 1,415 consecutive patients with symptomatic AF, 825 patients had body mass index ≥27 kg/m2. After screening for exclusion criteria, the final cohort comprised 355 patients: 208 patients who opted for RFM and 147 control subjects and were followed by 3 to 6 monthly clinic review, 7-day Holter monitoring, and AF Symptom Score. A decision analytical model calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of cost per unit of global well-being gained and unit of AF burden reduced. There were no differences in baseline characteristics or follow-up duration (p = NS). Arrhythmia-free survival was better in the RFM compared with control subjects (Kaplan-Meier: 79% vs. 44%; p < 0.001). At follow-up, RFM group had less unplanned specialist visits (0.19 ± 0.40 vs. 1.94 ± 2.00; p < 0.001), hospitalizations (0.74 ± 1.3 vs. 1.05 ± 1.60; p = 0.03), cardioversions (0.89 ± 1.50 vs. 1.51 ± 2.30; p = 0.002), emergency presentations (0.18 ± 0.50 vs. 0.76 ± 1.20; p < 0.001), and ablation procedures (0.60 ± 0.69 vs. 0.72 ± 0.86; p = 0.03). Antihypertensive (0.53 ± 0.70 vs. 0.78 ± 0.60; p = 0.04) and antiarrhythmic (0.26 ± 0.50 vs. 0.91 ± 0.60; p = 0.003) use declined in RFM. The RFM group had an increase of 0.1930 quality-adjusted life years and a cost saving of $12,094 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $62,653 saved per quality-adjusted life years gained). A structured physician-directed RFM program is clinically effective and cost saving.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 72 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 2 20%
Lecturer 2 20%
Student > Master 1 10%
Student > Postgraduate 1 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 10%
Other 3 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 50%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 10%
Unspecified 1 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 10%
Other 1 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 August 2017.
All research outputs
#251,641
of 11,352,457 outputs
Outputs from JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
#19
of 373 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,487
of 263,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
#2
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,352,457 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 373 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,631 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.