Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is an open hole between the right and left upper chambers of the heart. It may increase the risk of stroke, so closure of the hole is considered a secondary prevention in patients who have experienced cryptogenic stroke. Recent evidence has been published on the effectiveness of PFO closure, including a publicly funded prospective study on the effectiveness of PFO closure for preventing recurrent stroke or transient ischemic attack in selected Korean patients who have experienced cryptogenic stroke. The objective of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of PFO closure using this recent evidence.

Available clinical data from the aforementioned Korean prospective study and other recent multicenter trials funded by public bodies were used. The cost data were obtained from the current Korean National Health Insurance fee schedule. Utility data were extracted from local research on stroke patients. A cost-effectiveness analysis, based on a 20-year Markov model, was conducted using these data to compare PFO closure plus antiplatelet therapy with oral anticoagulants alone.

The initial analysis showed that PFO plus antiplatelet therapy costs KRW 7.13 million (USD 6,547) more than oral anticoagulants alone but has a higher utility of 1.3 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient, which corresponds to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of KRW 5.6 million (USD 5,142) per QALY. The implicit Korean ICER threshold is KRW 25 million (USD 22,955) for non-cancer drugs, so it seems that PFO plus antiplatelet therapy is cost effective in the Korean setting.

Since this study used some transition probabilities from foreign sources, the results may not be completely transferable to the Korean setting. However, this is the best available evidence so far in Korea for the economic evaluation of the PFO closure procedure. Therefore, use of PFO closure in carefully selected patients with a history of cryptogenic stroke may benefit the public payer in Korea.

The reduction of healthcare costs and societal cost due to remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has been demonstrated in several countries; however, to the best of our knowledge it does not exist for South Korea. This work aims at providing an estimation of the potential benefit of RM versus standard care (SC) of CIEDs in term of healthcare costs in South Korea, in order to provide additional substance to the currently ongoing societal debate about the value of telemedicine.

Healthcare resource consumption was taken from the results of the TARIFF study, a prospective, non-randomized, multicenter clinical trial designed in Italy to assess the economic benefits of RM follow-up in comparison with standard follow-up in 209 patients (107 SC, 102 RM). The main results demonstrated that RM reduced healthcare resource consumption by 54 percent from a healthcare services perspective (SC: EUR1,044.89±1,990.47 versus RM: EUR482.87±2488.10, p<.0001 (1).

In order to perform a cost analysis from the perspective of the South Korean healthcare payer, the following unit costs were assigned to resources collected in TARIFF (hospitalizations, visits, examinations): fee-for-service tariffs, emergency tariffs and outpatient tariffs. Remote follow-up costs were considered as zero.

From the perspective of the South Korean healthcare payer, the overall mean annual cost/patient in the RM group is 53 percent lower than in SC group (SC: EUR405,439±40,135 versus RM: EUR189,96±725,52, p<.0001) (SC: KRW 497,145±49,2137 versus RM: KRW 232,936±890,181, p<.0001). This is mainly due to a significant cost reduction in device-related hospitalizations, examination tests and visits in the follow-up period.

RM of CIED patients is cost-saving from the perspective of the South Korean healthcare system. Introducing appropriate reimbursement for remote monitoring of CIED is not likely to change this result and should make RM sustainable for the provider and encourage widespread adoption of RM.