A Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation with Antiarrhythmic Drugs in Treatment of Chinese Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

Cost Effectiveness of Strategies to Manage Atrial Fibrillation in Middle- and High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) remains the most common form of cardiac arrhythmia. Management of AF aims to reduce the risk of stroke, heart failure and premature mortality via rate or rhythm control. This study aimed to review the literature on the cost effectiveness of treatment strategies to manage AF among adults living in low-, middle- and high-income countries.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (OvidSp), Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EconLit and Google Scholar for relevant studies between September 2022 and November 2022. The search strategy involved medical subject headings or related text words. Data management and selection was performed using EndNote library. The titles and abstracts were screened followed by eligibility assessment of full texts. Selection, assessment of the risk of bias within the studies, and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. The cost-effectiveness results were synthesised narratively. The analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel 365. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for each study was adjusted to 2021 USD values.

RESULTS

Fifty studies were included in the analysis after selection and risk of bias assessment. In high-income countries, apixaban was predominantly cost effective for stroke prevention in patients at low and moderate risk of stroke, while left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) was cost effective in patients at high risk of stroke. Propranolol was the cost-effective choice for rate control, while catheter ablation and the convergent procedure were cost-effective strategies in patients with paroxysmal and persistent AF, respectively. Among the anti-arrhythmic drugs, sotalol was the cost-effective strategy for rhythm control. In middle-income countries, apixaban was the cost-effective choice for stroke prevention in patients at low and moderate risk of stroke while high-dose edoxaban was cost effective in patients at high risk of stroke. Radiofrequency catheter ablation was the cost-effective option in rhythm control. No data were available for low-income countries.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review has shown that there are several cost-effective strategies to manage AF in different resource settings. However, the decision to use any strategy should be guided by objective clinical and economic evidence supported by sound clinical judgement.

REGISTRATION

CRD42022360590.

Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness Comparison of Catheter Ablation and Antiarrhythmic Drugs in Atrial Fibrillation Treatment Using Discrete Event Simulation

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of 3 widely used atrial fibrillation (AF) treatments from the perspectives of Chinese healthcare system: antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs), ThermoCool SmartTouch guided by ablation index (STAI), and second-generation cryoballoon (CB2).

METHODS

A discrete event simulation (DES) model was implemented to compare the lifetime cost-effectiveness of AADs, STAI, and CB2. AF disease progression was explicitly modeled based on the Atrial Fibrillation Progression Trial clinical study results. The base-case analysis assumed that patients with paroxysmal AF (PAF) entered the model at the age of 55 years and had a CHA2DS2-VASc (Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age ( > 65 = 1 point, > 75 = 2 points), Diabetes, previous Stroke/transient ischemic attack (2 points)-Vascular disease (peripheral arterial disease, previous myocardial infarction, aortic atheroma), Age 65 to 74 years, and Sex category) score of 2 for males and 3 for females. Model parameter uncertainties were incorporated throughout the DES simulation with full probabilistic model parameterization.

RESULTS

The lifetime cost-effectiveness evaluations showed that patients treated with AADs gained an average of 4.98 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and 9.63 life-years (LYs) at an average cost of US dollar (USD) 15 374. Patients treated with CB2 gained 5.92 QALYs and 10.74 LYs at an average cost of USD 26 811. The STAI group gained an average of 6.55 QALYs and 11.57 LYs at an average cost of USD 24 722. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios was USD 5927 and USD 12 167 per QALY for STAI versus AADs and CB2 versus AADs, respectively. Assuming the willingness-to-pay threshold for China is USD 30 390 per QALY, both ablation treatments will be cost-effective compared with AADs for patients with PAF.

CONCLUSIONS

The DES model demonstrated that catheter ablations are more cost-effective than AADs for patients with PAF under the healthcare system in China. Among catheter ablation technologies, STAI provides better outcomes at lower costs.