Cost-utility analysis of radiofrequency ablation versus optimal medical therapy in managing supraventricular tachycardia among Filipinos

Comparing the effects of pulsed and radiofrequency catheter ablation on quality of life, anxiety, and depression of patients with paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia: a single-center, randomized, single-blind, standard-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) may lead to decreased quality of life (QOL) and increased anxiety and depression in patients with paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT), possibly due to the lack of selectivity of the ablation tissue and the long ablation time. In recent years, pulsed field ablation (PFA) has been used for the first time in China to treat PSVT patients because of its ability to ablate abnormal tissue sites in a precise and transient manner. This study was conducted to compare the effects of PFA and RFCA on QOL and psychological symptoms of PSVT patients.

METHODS

We have designed a single-center, randomized, single-blind, standard-controlled trial. A total of 50 participants who met the eligibility criteria would be randomly allocated into the PFA group or RFCA group in a 1:1 ratio. All participants were assessed using the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) at pre-procedure (T0), post-procedure (T1), and 3 months post-procedure (T2). The SPSS 21.0 software was used to analyze the data through Wilcoxon and Fisher's exact tests and repeated measures ANOVA.

RESULTS

Twenty-five in the PFA group and 24 in the RFCA group completed the trial. SF-36: (1) Between-group comparison: At T1, PFA group had significantly higher SF-36 scores on physiological function (PF) and general health (GH) than RFCA group, with a treatment difference of 5.61 points and 18.51 points(P < 0.05). (2) Within-group comparison: We found that in the PFA and RFCA groups, T2 showed significant improvement in the remaining 6 subscales of the SF-36 scale compared to T1 and T0 (P < 0.05), except for body pain (BP) and social function (SF) scores. HADS: (1) Between-group comparison: no significant difference (P > 0.05). (2) Within-group comparison: The HADS scores of the PFA and RFCA groups were statistically significant at T2 compared to T0 and T1 (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provided new and meaningful evidence that PFA was effective in significantly improving QOL and decreasing anxiety and depression in PFA patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2200060272.