Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of percutaneous closure of a patent foramen ovale versus medical management in patients with a cryptogenic stroke: from the UK payer perspective

Aims: Percutaneous closure of a patent foramen ovale (PFO) is known to lower the risk of recurrent stroke in patients with a cryptogenic stroke. However, the economic implications of transcatheter PFO closure are less well known. From a UK payer perspective, a detailed economic appraisal of PFO closure was performed for prevention of recurrent ischemic stroke in patients with a PFO who had experienced a cryptogenic stroke. Materials and methods: A Markov cohort model was constructed using a 5-year time-horizon with a patient mean age of 45.2 years, reflecting the characteristics reported in the REDUCE trial. Transition probabilities, clinical inputs, costs, and utility values were ascertained from published and national costing sources. Total costs, incremental costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated, utilizing a discount rate of 3.5%. A range of univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also performed. Results: When applying a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 20,000 pound/QALY in accordance with NICE guidelines, PFO closure compared with antiplatelet therapy alone showed a beneficial cost/QALY of 18,584 pound, attained at 4 years. Applying discount rates of 0% and 6% had a negligible effect on the base-case model findings. PFO closure demonstrated a 76.9% probability of being cost-effective at a WTP threshold of 20,000 pound/QALY at a 5-year time-horizon. Limitations: This model focused specifically on UK stroke patients and typically enrolled young (mean age <65 years old) patients. Hence, caution should be taken when comparing data vs non-UK populations, and it remains unclear how older patients might have affected cost-effectiveness findings, as the risk of paradoxical embolism can persist as patients age. Conclusion: Percutaneous closure of a PFO is cost-effective compared with antiplatelet therapy alone, underlining the economic benefits potentially afforded by this treatment in selected patients.