Cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation

Cost-utility of VISITAG SURPOINT in catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Clinical studies have demonstrated the safety, efficacy, and efficiency of VISITAG SURPOINT® (VS), which provides important lesion markers during catheter ablation (CA) of atrial fibrillation (AF). The present study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of CA with VS compared to CA without VS in AF from the publicly-funded German and Belgium healthcare perspectives.

METHODS

We constructed a two-stage cost utility model that included a decision tree to simulate clinical events, costs, and utilities during the first year after the index procedure and a Markov model to simulate transitions between health states throughout a patient's lifetime. Model inputs included published literature, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials AF outcomes, and publicly available administrative data on costs. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

CA with VS was associated with lower per patient costs vs CA without VS (Germany: €3295 vs. €3936, Belgium: €3194 vs. €3814) and similar quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient (Germany: 5.35 vs. 5.34, Belgium: 5.68 vs. 5.67). CA with VS was the dominant ablation strategy (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios: Germany: €-52,455/QALY, Belgium: €-50,676/QALY). The model results were robust and not highly sensitive to variation to individual parameters with regard to QALYs or costs. Freedom from AF and procedure time had the greatest impact on model results, highlighting the importance of these outcomes in ablation.

CONCLUSIONS

CA with VS resulted in cost savings and QALY gains compared to CA without VS, supporting the increased adoption of VS in CA in Germany and Belgium.

Economic and Health Value of Delaying Atrial Fibrillation Progression Using Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation

BACKGROUND

Radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) is an established treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF) refractory to antiarrhythmic drugs. The economic value of RFCA in delaying disease progression has not been quantified.

METHODS

An individual-level, state-transition health economic model estimated the impact of delayed AF progression using RFCA versus antiarrhythmic drug treatment for a hypothetical sample of patients with paroxysmal AF. The model incorporated the lifetime risk of progression from paroxysmal AF to persistent AF, informed by data from the ATTEST (Atrial Fibrillation Progression Trial). The incremental effect of RFCA on disease progression was modeled over a 5-year duration. Annual crossover rates were also included for patients in the antiarrhythmic drug group to mirror clinical practice. Estimates of discounted costs and quality-adjusted life years asssociated with health care utilization, clinical outcomes, and complications were projected over patients' lifetimes.

RESULTS

From the payer's perspective, RFCA was superior to antiarrhythmic drug treatment with an estimated mean net monetary benefit per patient of $8516 ($148-$16 681), driven by reduced health care utilization, cost, and improved quality-adjusted life years. RFCA reduced mean (95% CI) per-patient costs by $73 (-$2700 to $2200), increased mean quality-adjusted life years by 0.084 (0.0-0.17) and decreased the mean number of cardiovascular-related health care encounters by 24%.

CONCLUSIONS

RFCA is a dominant (less costly and more effective) treatment strategy for patients with AF, especially those with early AF for whom RFCA could delay progression to advanced AF. Increased utilization of RFCA-particularly among patients earlier in their disease progression-may provide clinical and economic benefits.

Developing a cross-validation tool for evaluating economic evidence in rapid literature reviews

Background: Rapid economic reviews efficiently summarize economic evidence. However, reporting main findings without assessing quality and credibility can be misleading. The objective of this study was to develop a rapid cross-validation screening tool to evaluate economic evidence when conducting rapid economic literature reviews. Methods: This article outlines our reasoning and the theoretical concepts for developing the screening tool. Results: This cross-validation tool is a qualitative approach under a Bayesian framework that uses prior health economic evidence to gauge the credibility of the rapid economic review's findings. This article describes an application of this tool and highlights practical considerations for its development and deployment. Conclusion: This tool can provide a valuable screening instrument to evaluate the quality and credibility of the economic evidence.

Cost-Effectiveness of Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation: The CABANA Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

In the CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation), catheter ablation did not significantly reduce the primary end point of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest compared with drug therapy by intention-to-treat, but did improve the quality of life and freedom from atrial fibrillation recurrence. In the heart failure subgroup, ablation improved both survival and quality of life. Cost-effectiveness was a prespecified CABANA secondary end point.

METHODS

Medical resource use data were collected for all CABANA patients (N=2204). Costs for hospital-based care were assigned using prospectively collected bills from US patients (n=1171); physician and medication costs were assigned using the Medicare Fee Schedule and National Average Drug Acquisition Costs, respectively. Extrapolated life expectancies were estimated using age-based survival models. Quality-of-life adjustments were based on EQ-5D-based utilities measured during the trial. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, comparing ablation with drug therapy on the basis of intention-to-treat, and assessed from the US health care sector perspective.

RESULTS

Costs in the first 3 months averaged $20 794±SD 1069 higher with ablation compared with drug therapy. The cumulative within-trial 5-year cost difference was $19 245 (95% CI, $11 360-$27 170) and the lifetime mean cost difference was $15 516 (95% CI, -$2963 to $35,512) higher with ablation than with drug therapy. The drug therapy arm accrued an average of 12.5 life-years (LYs) and 10.7 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). For the ablation arm, the corresponding estimates were 12.6 LYs and 11.0 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $57 893 per QALY gained, with 75% of bootstrap replications yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$100 000 per QALY gained. With no quality-of-life/utility adjustments, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $183 318 per LY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation was economically attractive compared with drug therapy in the CABANA Trial overall at present benchmarks for health care value in the United States on the basis of projected incremental QALYs but not LYs alone.

Economic Evaluation of Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction may improve survival and other cardiovascular outcomes.

METHODS

We constructed a decision-analytic Markov model to estimate the costs and benefits of catheter ablation and medical management in patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%) and atrial fibrillation over a lifetime horizon. Evidence from the published literature informed the model inputs, including clinical effectiveness data from meta-analyses. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. A 3% discount rate was applied to both future costs and benefits. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio assessed from the US health care sector perspective.

RESULTS

Catheter ablation was associated with 6.47 (95% CI, 5.89-6.93) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and a total cost of $105 657 (95% CI, $55 311-$191 934; 2018 US dollars), compared with 5.30 (95% CI, 5.20-5.39) QALYs and $63 040 (95% CI, $37 624-$102 260) for medical management. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for catheter ablation compared with medical management was $38 496 (95% CI, $5583-$117 510) per QALY gained. Model inputs with the greatest variation on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates were the cost of ablation and the effect of catheter ablation on mortality reduction. When assuming a more conservative estimate of the treatment effect of catheter ablation on mortality (hazard ratio of 0.86), the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $74 403 per QALY gained. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained, atrial fibrillation ablation was found to be economically favorable compared with medical management in 95% of simulations.

CONCLUSIONS

Catheter ablation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients and atrial fibrillation may be considered economically attractive at current benchmarks for societal willingness-to-pay in the United States.

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

INTRODUCTION

Radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) is widely used to treat atrial fibrillation (AF) in China.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine the long-term cost effectiveness of RFCA versus antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) in treating AF from the perspective of third-party payers.

METHODS

The model was structured as a 12-month decision tree leading to a Markov model that simulated the follow-up treatment outcomes and costs with time horizons of 8, 15, and 20 years. Comparators were standard-of-care AADs. Clinical parameters captured normal sinus rhythm, AF, stroke, post-stroke, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), gastrointestinal bleeding, post-ICH, and death. The risk of operative death, procedural complications, and adverse drug toxicity were also considered. The model output was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost per QALY gained.

RESULTS

RFCA incurred more costs than the AADs but resulted in more QALYs gained than did AADs. The incremental cost per QALY gained with RFCA versus AADs was ¥66,764, ¥36,280, and ¥29,359 at 8, 15, and 20 years, respectively. The sensitivity analyses showed that the results were most sensitive to the changes in RFCA cost and CHADS₂ score (clinical prediction rule for assessing the risk of stroke in patients with non-rheumatic AF).

CONCLUSION

Compared with AADs, RFCA significantly improves clinical outcomes and QALYs among patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF. From the Chinese payer's perspective, RFCA is a cost-effective therapy over long-term horizons.

Modelling the lifetime cost-effectiveness of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation with heart failure

OBJECTIVES

Assessing the cost-effectiveness credentials of this intervention in patients with concomitant atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) compared with usual medical therapy.

DESIGN

A Markov model comprising two health states (ie, alive or dead) was constructed. The transition probabilities were directly derived from published Kaplan-Meier curves of the pivotal randomised controlled trial and extrapolated over the cohort's lifetime using recommended methods. Costs of catheter ablation, outpatient consultations, hospitalisation, medications and examinations were included. Resource use and unit costs were sourced from government websites or published literature. A lifetime horizon and a healthcare system perspective were taken. All costs and benefits were discounted at 3% annually. Deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were run around the key model parameters to test the robustness of the base case results.

PARTICIPANTS

A hypothetical Australian cohort of patients with concomitant AF and HF who are resistant to antiarrhythmic treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

Catheter ablation versus medical therapy.

RESULTS

The catheter ablation was associated with a cost of $A44 377 per person, in comparison to $A28 506 for the medical therapy alone over a lifetime. Catheter ablation contributed to 4.58 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and 6.99 LY gains compared with 4.30 QALYs and 6.53 LY gains, respectively, in the medical therapy arm. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $A55 942/QALY or $A35 020/LY. The DSA showed that results were highly sensitive to costs of ablation and time horizon. The PSA yielded very consistent results with the base case.

CONCLUSIONS

Offering catheter ablation procedure to patients with systematic paroxysmal or persistent AF who failed to respond to antiarrhythmic drugs was associated with higher costs, greater benefits. When compared with medical therapy alone, this intervention is not cost-effective from an Australia healthcare system perspective.

How does the Cox maze procedure compare? Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative treatments of atrial fibrillation

OBJECTIVES

Data related to the cost effectiveness of surgical interventions and catheter ablation is sparse. This model-based analysis assessed the clinical and economic trade-offs involved in using catheter ablation or the Cox maze procedure in treating patients with atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

A deterministic model was developed to project 1 year and lifetime health-related outcomes, costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost effectiveness of each treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation. Using previously unpublished Inova Heart and Vascular Institute (IHVI) data for patients undergoing either procedure, 1 year cost and clinical efficacy inputs were estimated. This data was supplemented with published literature and used to estimate costs, utilities, mortality and likelihood of patient improvement. Results were reported as cost-effectiveness ratios in $/QALY. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of results.

RESULTS

Patients initially treated with a Cox maze procedure were estimated to have higher costs than those treated with catheter ablation, both after 1 year and over the lifetime. However, patients undergoing the Cox maze procedure also had lower rates of 1 year mortality than catheter ablation patients (3.5% vs. 8.5%) and the highest rate of improvement following treatment, resulting in higher QALYs (12.4 vs. 10.2). Compared to catheter ablation, the lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the Cox maze surgical procedure was $12,794 per QALY gained. Without quality adjustment, the ratio was $11,315. Results were most sensitive to the likelihood of improvement following each intervention and the cost of the initial procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

At a societal willingness to pay of $100,000/QALY, Cox maze procedure was found to both increase overall and quality-adjusted survival and constitute an effective use of resources in patients with atrial fibrillation.

A Cost-Utility Analysis of Cryoballoon Ablation versus Radiofrequency Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation

Introduction

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the treatment with cryoballoon (CB) compared to the standard treatment with traditional irrigated radiofrequency (RF) ablation for pulmonary vein isolation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (pAF) refractory to antiarrhythmic drug therapy.

Methods

A decision tree model was developed to graphically depict the probabilities, utilities and costs of CB compared to RF therapy. Data from a conducted systematic literature review and meta-analysis of only RCTs were used to evaluate clinical outcomes of CB and RF treatments, including success rates after one year, complications and recurrence of atrial fibrillation.

Results

The cost-utility analysis estimated that, CB therapy had £1,747 higher cost, and 0.0114 more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared to standard RF treatment over a one-year time horizon. The incremental cost per QALY of CB ablation compared to RF ablation was estimated to be £152,836/QALY.

Conclusions

Based on current evidence, CB ablation for pulmonary vein isolation in patients with pAF is costeffective compared to RF if decision makers are willing to pay £152,836 or higher for a QALY.

Patient and facility variation in costs of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness or value of cardiovascular therapies may be undermined by unwarranted cost variation, particularly for heterogeneous procedures such as catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF). We sought to characterize cost variation of AF ablation in the US healthcare system and the relationship between cost and outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a retrospective cohort study using data from the MarketScan® commercial claims and Medicare supplemental databases including patients who received an AF ablation from 2007 to 2011. We aggregated encounter cost, reflecting total payments received for the encounter, to the facility level to calculate median facility cost. We classified procedures as outpatient or inpatient and assessed for association between cost and 30-day and 1-year outcomes. The analysis cohort included 9,415 AF ablations (59±11 years; 28% female; 52% outpatient) occurring at 327 facilities, with large cost variation across facilities (median: $25,100; 25th percentile: $18,900, 75th percentile: $35,600, 95th percentile: $57,800). Among outpatient procedures, there was reduced healthcare utilization in higher cost quintiles with reductions in rehospitalization at 30-days (Quintile 1: 16.1%, Quintile 5: 8.8%, P < 0.001) and 1-year (Quintile 1: 34.8%, Quintile 5: 25.6%, P < 0.001), which remained significant in multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Although median costs of AF ablation are below amounts used in prior cost-effectiveness studies that demonstrated good value, large facility variation in cost suggests opportunities for cost reduction. However, for outpatient encounters, association of cost to modestly improved outcomes suggests cost containment strategies could have variable effects.

Real-world outcomes, complications, and cost of catheter-based ablation for atrial fibrillation: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Catheter-based ablation for atrial fibrillation is a useful and effective form of rhythm-control therapy for symptomatic patients. This article reviews the 'real-world' experience on the outcomes, complications, and costs of atrial fibrillation ablation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Currently, real-world outcomes of atrial fibrillation ablation are derived from retrospective analysis of administrative databases or prospective registries from selected centers and patients. The rate of atrial fibrillation recurrence was reported to be as high as 60% and the rate of repeat ablation ranged from ≈10 to 18% within 1 year after ablation. All-cause hospitalizations after atrial fibrillation ablation were frequent, at up to ≈30% within 1 year and with up to half of them related to atrial fibrillation recurrence or repeat procedures. Rates of periprocedural complications were relatively low (≈3%). Female sex was associated with higher risk of complications such as bleeding, vascular injury, and tamponade. Markov models examining the cost-effectiveness of ablation yielded favorable results when success rates of more than 70% were assumed with long time horizons (>5 years).

SUMMARY

The real-world outcomes of atrial fibrillation ablation are sobering. Confirmation of these findings with prospective, population-based, minimally biased studies is needed. There is a critical need to delineate the downstream economic impact of atrial fibrillation ablation on society to justify its continued delivery and growth.

National Trends in Atrial Fibrillation Hospitalization, Readmission, and Mortality for Medicare Beneficiaries, 1999-2013

BACKGROUND

Data are lacking on national trends for atrial fibrillation (AF) hospitalization, particularly with regard to long-term outcomes including readmission and mortality.

METHODS

We studied all Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries between 1999 and 2013, and we evaluated rates of hospitalization for AF, in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and hospital payments. We then evaluated rates of long-term outcomes, including 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, and 1-year mortality. To evaluate changes in rates of AF hospitalization and mortality, we used mixed-effects models, adjusting for age, sex, race, and comorbidity. To assess changes in rates of 30-day readmission, we constructed a Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age, sex, race, and comorbidity.

RESULTS

Adjusted rates of hospitalization for AF increased by ≈1% per year between 1999 and 2013, and although geographic variation was present, this trend was consistent nationwide. Median hospital length of stay remained unchanged at 3.0 (interquartile range 2.0-5.0) days, but median Medicare inpatient expenditure per beneficiary increased from $2932 (interquartile range $2232-$3870) to $4719 (interquartile range $3124-$7209) per stay. During the same period, the rate of inpatient mortality during AF hospitalization decreased by 4% per year, and the rate of 30-day readmission decreased by 1% per year. The rates of 30-day and 1-year mortality decreased more modestly by 0.4% and 0.26% per year, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Between 1999 and 2013, among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, patients were hospitalized more frequently and treated with more costly inpatient therapies such as AF catheter ablation, but this finding was associated with improved outcomes, including lower rates of in-hospital mortality, 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, and 1-year mortality.

The Cost Effectiveness of LAA Exclusion

Left atrial appendage (LAA) exclusion strategies are increasingly utilized for stroke prevention in lieu of oral anticoagulants. Reductions in bleeding risk and long-term compliance issues bundled with comparable stroke prevention benefits have made these interventions increasingly attractive. Unfortunately, healthcare funding remains limited. Comparative cost economic analyses are therefore critical in optimizing resource allocation. In this review we seek to discourse the cost economics analysis of LAA exclusion over available therapeutic alternatives (warfarin and the new oral anticoagulants (NOACs)). .

Using physiologically based models for clinical translation: predictive modelling, data interpretation or something in-between?

Heart disease continues to be a significant clinical problem in Western society. Predictive models and simulations that integrate physiological understanding with patient information derived from clinical data have huge potential to contribute to improving our understanding of both the progression and treatment of heart disease. In particular they provide the potential to improve patient selection and optimisation of cardiovascular interventions across a range of pathologies. Currently a significant proportion of this potential is still to be realised. In this paper we discuss the opportunities and challenges associated with this realisation. Reviewing the successful elements of model translation for biophysically based models and the emerging supporting technologies, we propose three distinct modes of clinical translation. Finally we outline the challenges ahead that will be fundamental to overcome if the ultimate goal of fully personalised clinical cardiac care is to be achieved.

Cost-effectiveness of Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation: A Canadian Perspective

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) affects approximately 350,000 Canadians and has an estimated annual economic burden exceeding $800 million dollars. Anti-arrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy and catheter ablation (CA) are the two common treatments for paroxysmal AF. However, the upfront costs of CA are quite substantial. Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of CA compared to AAD for AF based on community practice. Methods: A Markov simulation model was developed for a hypothetical cohort of 55-year-old patients with paroxysmal AF and a low stroke risk. Patients received either CA or AAD. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were computed over lifetime, 10-year, and 5-year time horizons. Model inputs were obtained from a large, prospectively collected, single-center Canadian registry and augmented with the published literature, using Canadian cost estimates for disease states. Threshold values of $25,000, $50,000, and $100,000 per QALY, respectively, were used to determine cost-effectiveness. All costs were expressed in 2012 Canadian dollars. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for CA versus AAD therapy was $1,228, $22,879, and $63,647 for the lifetime, 10-year, and 5-year time horizons, respectively. Over a lifetime horizon, the probability of achieving cost-effectiveness was 100% for all 3 cost per QALY thresholds. The 10-year probability of achieving cost-effectiveness was 74%, 100%, and 100% at the $25,000, $50,000, and $100,000 thresholds, respectively. The 5-year probability of achieving cost-effectiveness was 0%, 0.9%, and 100% at the 3 cost per QALY thresholds. Results were most sensitive to time horizon, probability of repeat AF ablation, and stroke rate. Conclusions: From the perspective of the Canadian Healthcare system, CA is a potentially cost-effective treatment compared to AAD therapy in a low stroke risk population using real-world data when examining a time horizon of greater than 5 years.

The Impact of First Procedure Success Rate on the Economics of Atrial Fibrillation Ablation

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare health care costs associated with repeat ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) with health care costs associated with a successful first procedure.

BACKGROUND

Catheter ablation has become established as a rhythm control strategy for symptomatic paroxysmal and persistent AF. The economic impact of ablation is not completely understood, and it may be affected by repeat procedures performed for recurrent AF.

METHODS

The source of data was the MarketScan (Truven Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan) administrative claims dataset from April 2008 to March 2013, including U.S. patients with private and Medicare supplemental insurance. Patients who underwent an outpatient atrial ablation procedure and a diagnosis of AF were identified. Total health care cost was calculated for 1 year before and after the ablation. Patients were categorized as having undergone a repeat ablation if an additional ablation was performed in the following year.

RESULTS

Of 12,027 patients included in the study, repeat ablation was performed in 2,066 (17.2%) within 1 year. Patients with repeat ablation had higher rates of emergency department visits (43.4% vs. 32.2%; < 0.001) and subsequent hospitalization (35.6% vs. 21.5%; p < 0.001), after excluding hospitalizations for the repeat procedure. Total medical cost was higher for patients with repeat ablation ($52,821 vs. $13,412; p < 0.001), and it remained 46% higher even after excluding the cost associated with additional ablations ($19,621 vs. $13,412; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Health care costs are significantly higher for patients with a repeat ablation for AF than for patients with only a single ablation procedure, even though both groups have similar baseline characteristics. The increased costs persist even after excluding the cost of the repeat ablation itself. These results emphasize the economic benefit of procedural success in AF ablation.

The transition to value-based care

Delivery of medical care is evolving rapidly worldwide. Over the past several years in the USA, there has been a rapid shift in reimbursement from a simple fee-for-service model to more complex models that attempt to link payment to quality and value. Change in any large system can be difficult, but with medicine, the transition to a value-based system has been particularly hard to implement because both quality and cost are difficult to quantify. Professional societies and other medical groups are developing different programs in an attempt to define high value care. However, applying a national standard of value for any treatment is challenging, since value varies from person to person, and the individual benefit must remain the central tenet for delivering best patient-centered medical care. Regardless of the specific operational features of the rapidly changing healthcare environment, physicians must first and foremost always remain patient advocates.

Electrophysiological Perspectives on Hybrid Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation

To overcome limitations of minimally invasive surgical ablation as a standalone procedure in eliminating atrial fibrillation (AF), hybrid approaches incorporating adjunctive endovascular catheter ablation have been proposed in recent years. The endovascular component targets residual conduction gaps and identifies additional electrophysiological targets with the goal of minimizing recurrent atrial arrhythmia. We performed a systematic review of published studies of hybrid AF ablation, analyzing 432 pooled patients (19% paroxysmal, 29% persistent, 52% long-standing persistent) treated using three different approaches: A. bilateral thoracoscopy with bipolar radiofrequency (RF) clamp-based approach; B. right thoracoscopic suction monopolar RF catheter-based approach; and C. subxiphoid posterior pericardioscopic ("convergent") approach. Freedom from recurrence off antiarrhythmic medications at 12 months was seen in 88.1% [133/151] for A, 73.4% [47/64] for B, and 59.3% [80/135] for C, with no significant difference between paroxysmal (76.9%) and persistent/long-standing persistent AF (73.4%). Death and major surgical complications were reported in 8.5% with A, 0% with B and 8.6% with C. A critical appraisal of hybrid ablation is presented, drawing from experiences and insights published over the years on catheter ablation of AF, with a discussion of the rationale underlying hybrid ablation, its strengths and limitations, where it may have a unique role in clinical management of patients with AF, which questions remain unanswered and areas for further investigation.

New Mechanism-based Approaches to Ablating Persistent AF: Will Drug Therapy Soon Be Obsolete?

Persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) represents a major public health and medical challenge. The progressive nature of the disease, high morbidity, and increasing health-economic costs ensure that it remains at the forefront of novel research into mechanisms and potential therapies. These are largely divided into pharmacological (drugs) and electrical (ablation) with patients often going from former to latter. AF ablation has improved sufficiently to be offered as first line for paroxysmal AF, but whether drug therapy will or be relegated. In this review, we shall outline the progress in mechanistic understanding of AF that may allow results from ablation to diverge dramatically from drug therapy and identify populations in whom drug therapy may become less relevant. We end by looking ahead to future developments that we hope will spur on therapeutic efficacy in both fields.

Evaluating the Cost-effectiveness of Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the most common cardiac conditions treated in primary care and specialty cardiology settings, and is associated with considerable morbidity, mortality and cost. Catheter ablation, typically by electrically isolating the pulmonary veins and surrounding tissue, is more effective at maintaining sinus rhythm than conventional antiarrhythmic drug therapy and is now recommended as first-line therapy. From a value standpoint, the cost-effectiveness of ablation must incorporate the upfront procedural costs and risks with the benefits of longer term improvements in quality of life (QOL) and healthcare utilisation. Here, we present a primer on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), review the data on cost-effectiveness of AF ablation and outline key areas for further investigation.

Readmission rates and long-term hospital costs among survivors of an in-hospital cardiac arrest

BACKGROUND

Although an in-hospital cardiac arrest is common, little is known about readmission patterns and an inpatient resource use among survivors of an in-hospital cardiac arrest.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Within a large national registry, we examined long-term inpatient use among 6972 adults aged ≥65 years who survived an in-hospital cardiac arrest. We examined 30-day and 1-year readmission rates and inpatient costs, overall and by patient demographics, hospital disposition (discharge destination), and neurological status at discharge. The mean age was 75.8±7.0 years, 56% were men, and 12% were black. There were a total of 2005 readmissions during the first 30 days (cumulative incidence rate, 35 readmissions/100 patients; 95% confidence interval, 33-37) and 8751 readmissions at 1 year (cumulative incidence rate, 185 readmissions/100 patients; 95% confidence interval, 177-190). Overall, mean inpatient costs were $7741±$2323 at 30 days and $18 629±$9411 at 1 year. Thirty-day inpatient costs were higher in patients of younger age (≥85 years, $6052 [reference]; 75-84 years, $7444 [adjusted cost ratio, 1.23; 1.06-1.42; 65-74 years, $8291 [adjusted cost ratio, 1.37; 1.19-1.59; both P<0.001) and black race (whites, $7413; blacks, $9044; adjusted cost ratio, 1.22; 1.05-1.42; P<0.001), as well as those discharged with severe neurological disability or to skilled nursing or rehabilitation facilities. These differences in resource use persisted at 1 year and were largely because of higher readmission rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Survivors of an in-hospital cardiac arrest have frequent readmissions and high follow-up inpatient costs. Readmissions and inpatient costs were higher in certain subgroups, including patients of younger age and black race.

The cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency catheter ablation as first-line treatment for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: results from a MANTRA-PAF substudy

AIM

The aim of this prospective substudy was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treating paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) with radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFA) compared with antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) as first-line treatment.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A decision-analytic Markov model, based on MANTRA-PAF (Medical Antiarrhythmic Treatment or Radiofrequency Ablation in Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation) study data, was developed to study long-term effects and costs of RFA compared with AADs as first-line treatment. Positive clinical effects were found in the overall population, a gain of an average 0.06 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to an incremental cost of €3033, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €50 570/QALY. However, the result of the subgroup analyses showed that RFA was less costly and more effective in younger patients. This implied an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €3434/QALY in ≤50-year-old patients respectively €108 937/QALY in >50-year-old patients.

CONCLUSION

Radiofrequency catheter ablation as first-line treatment is a cost-effective strategy for younger patients with paroxysmal AF. However, the cost-effectiveness of using RFA as first-line therapy in older patients is uncertain, and in most of these AADs should be attempted before RFA (MANTRA-PAF ClinicalTrials.gov number; NCT00133211).

Cost-effectiveness of the convergent procedure and catheter ablation for non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

OBJECTIVE

Patients with persistent or longstanding atrial fibrillation have modest success achieving sinus rhythm with catheter ablation or rhythm control medications. Their high risk of stroke, bleed, and heart failure leads to significant morbidity and health care costs. The convergent procedure has been shown to be successful in this population, with 80% of patients in sinus rhythm after 1 year. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the convergent procedure, catheter ablation, and medical management for non-paroxysmal AF patients.

METHODS

A Markov micro-simulation model was used to estimate costs and effectiveness from a payer perspective. Parameter estimates were from the literature. Three patient cohorts were simulated, representing lower, medium, and higher risks of stroke, bleed, heart failure, and hospitalization. Effects were estimated by quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Single-variable sensitivity analysis was performed.

RESULTS

After 5 years, convergent procedure patients averaged 1.10 procedures, with 75% of survivors in sinus rhythm; catheter ablation patients had 1.65 procedures, with 49% in sinus rhythm. Compared to medical management, catheter ablation and the convergent procedure were cost-effective for the lower risk (ICER <$35,000) and medium risk (ICER <$15,000) cohorts. The procedures dominated medical management for the higher risk cohort (lower cost and higher QALYs). The convergent procedure dominated catheter ablation for all risk cohorts. RESULTS were subject to simplifying assumptions and limited by uncertain factors such as long-term maintenance of sinus rhythm after successful procedure and incremental AF-associated event rates for AF patients relative to patients in sinus rhythm. In the absence of clinical trial data, convergent procedure efficacy was estimated with observational evidence. Limitations were addressed with sensitivity analyses and a moderate 5 year time horizon.

CONCLUSION

The convergent procedure results in superior maintenance of post-ablation sinus rhythm with fewer repeat ablation procedures compared to catheter ablation, leading to lower cost and higher QALYs after 5 years.

The cost-utility of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and critical appraisal of economic evaluations

BACKGROUND

A health technology assessment (HTA) of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (CA-AF) was commissioned by the Belgian government and performed by the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE). In this context, a systematic review of the economic literature was performed to assess the procedure's value for money.

METHODS

A systematic search for economic literature about the cost-effectiveness of CA-AF was performed by consulting various databases: CRD (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) HTA and CDSR (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) Technology Assessment, websites of HTA institutes, NHS EED (NHS Economic Evaluation Database), Medline (OVID), EMBASE and EconLit. No time or language restrictions were imposed and pre-defined selection criteria were used. The two-step selection procedure was performed by two persons. References of the selected studies were checked for additional relevant citations.

RESULTS

Out of 697 references, seven relevant studies were selected. Based on current evidence and economic considerations, the rationale to support catheter ablation as first-line treatment was lacking.The economic evaluations for second-line catheter ablation included several assumptions that make the results rather optimistic or subject to large uncertainty. First, overall AAD (antiarrhythmic drugs) use after ablation was higher in reality than assumed in the economic evaluations, which had its impact on costs and effects. Second, several models focused on the impact of ablation on preventing stroke. This was questionable because there was no direct hard evidence from RCTs to support this assumption. An indirect impact through stroke on mortality should also be regarded with caution. Furthermore, all models included an impact on quality of life (QoL)/utility and assumed a long-term impact. Unfortunately, none of the RCTs measured QoL with a generic utility instrument and information on the long-term impact on both mortality and QoL was lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

Catheter ablation is associated with high initial costs and may lead to life-threatening complications. Its cost-effectiveness depends on the belief one places on the impact on utility and/or preventing stroke, and the duration of these effects. Having no hard evidence for these important variables is rather troublesome. Although the technique is widely spread, the scientific evidence is insufficient for drawing conclusions about the intervention's cost-effectiveness.

Cost-effectiveness of catheter ablation for rhythm control of atrial fibrillation

Objective. The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of catheter ablation for rhythm control compared to antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who have previously failed on an AAD. Methods. An economic model was developed to compare (1) catheter ablation and (2) AAD (amiodarone 200 mg/day). At the end of the initial 12 month phase of the model, patients are classified as being in normal sinus rhythm or with AF, based on data from a meta-analysis. In the 5-year Markov phase of the model, patients are at risk of ischemic stroke each 3-month model cycle. Results. The model estimated that, compared to the AAD strategy, ablation had $8,539 higher costs, 0.033 fewer strokes, and 0.144 more QALYS over the 5-year time horizon. The incremental cost per QALY of ablation compared to AAD was estimated to be $59,194. The probability of ablation being cost-effective for willingness to pay thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000 was estimated to be 0.89 and 0.90, respectively. Conclusion. Based on current evidence, pulmonary vein ablation for treatment of AF is cost-effective if decision makers willingness to pay for a QALY is $59,194 or higher.

Cost-Effectiveness of Atrial Fibrillation Ablation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a frequently encountered rhythm disorder, characterized by high recurrence rate, frequent hospitalizations, reduced quality-of-life and increased the risk of mortality, heart failure and stroke. Along with these clinical complications this type of arrhythmia is the major driver of health-related expenditures. Radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFA) of atrial fibrillation has been shown to improve freedom from arrhythmia survival, reduce re-hospitalization rate and provide better quality-of-life as compared with rate control and rhythm control with antiarrhythmic therapy. Efficacy of AF ablation in terms of outcomes and costs has an evolving importance. In this review, we aimed to highlight current knowledge on AF ablation clinical outcomes based on results of randomized clinical trials and community-based studies, and overview how this improvement in clinical end-points affects costs for arrhythmia care and cost-effectiveness of AF ablation.

Cost effectiveness of antiarrhythmic medications in patients suffering from atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF), a supraventricular tachycardia disorder, is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia affecting 1-2 % of the general population. Prevalence is highly related to age, with every fourth individual older than 40 years old developing AF during his lifetime. Due to an aging population, the prevalence of AF is estimated to at least double within the next 50 years. This article presents AF-related cost-of-illness studies and reviews 19 cost-effectiveness studies and six cost studies published roughly over the past decade, which have compared different antiarrhythmic medications for AF. A systematic literature search for studies published between June 2000 and December 2011 was conducted in PubMed using the combination of keywords ((atrial fibrillation OR atrial flutter) AND cost). Current cost-effectiveness analyses of dronedarone and the pill-in-the-pocket strategy are subject to substantial uncertainties with regard to clinical benefit. Comparing rate control with rhythm control, a cost-effectiveness advantage for rate control was shown in several but not all studies. Within antiarrhythmic drug treatments, magnesium added onto ibutilide was shown to be more cost effective than ibutilide alone. Comparing chemical and electrical cardioversion, the latter was recommended as more cost effective from the healthcare system perspective in all reviewed studies but one. Catheter ablation appeared more cost effective than antiarrhythmic drugs in the medium to long run after 3.2-63.9 years. Admissions to hospital, inpatient care and interventional procedures as well as mortality benefit are key drivers for the cost effectiveness of AF medications. No clear cost-effectiveness advantage emerged for one specific antiarrhythmic drug from the studies that compared antiarrhythmic agents. Rate control as well as catheter ablation appear more cost effective than rhythm control in the treatment of AF. Rate control treatment also seems more cost effective than electrical cardioversion in AF patients.

Atrial fibrillation and stroke: the evolving role of rhythm control

OPINION STATEMENT

Atrial fibrillation (AF) remains a major risk factor for stroke. Unfortunately, clinical trials have failed to demonstrate that a strategy of rhythm control--therapy to maintain normal sinus rhythm (NSR)--reduces stroke risk. The apparent lack of benefit of rhythm control likely reflects the difficulty in maintaining NSR using currently available therapies. However, there are signals from several trials that the presence of NSR is indeed beneficial and associated with better outcomes related to stroke and mortality. Most electrophysiologists feel that as rhythm control strategies continue to improve, the crucial link between rhythm control and stroke reduction will finally be demonstrated. Therefore, AF specialists tend to be aggressive in their attempts to maintain NSR, especially in patients who have symptomatic AF. A step-wise approach from antiarrhythmic drugs to catheter ablation to cardiac surgery is generally used. In select patients, catheter ablation or cardiac surgery may supersede antiarrhythmic drugs. The choice depends on the type of AF, concurrent heart disease, drug toxicity profiles, procedural risks, and patient preferences. Regardless of strategy, given the limited effectiveness of currently available rhythm control therapies, oral anticoagulation is still recommended for stroke prophylaxis in AF patients with other stroke risk factors. Major challenges in atrial fibrillation management include selecting patients most likely to benefit from rhythm control, choosing specific antiarrhythmic drugs or procedures to achieve rhythm control, long-term monitoring to gauge the efficacy of rhythm control, and determining which (if any) patients may safely discontinue anticoagulation if long-term NSR is achieved.

Rate or rhythm control for atrial fibrillation: update and controversies

Atrial fibrillation is associated with increased mortality and considerable morbidity, including stroke, heart failure, and diminished quality of life. Despite these adverse outcomes, rhythm control has not demonstrated benefit in clinical trials. Antiarrhythmic medications, including recently developed agents, have limited efficacy in achieving durable sinus rhythm and substantial toxicity. A rate-control strategy is therefore more attractive for minimally symptomatic patients, but younger and more symptomatic patients may benefit from restoration of sinus rhythm. Catheter ablation is more effective than medications in preventing arrhythmia recurrence, avoids adverse effects associated with antiarrhythmic drugs, and should be considered early in symptomatic patients when success is likely. However, more definitive data are needed from randomized trials assessing long-term outcomes after ablation, including stroke risk and mortality. Clinical decision tools help select the appropriate management for individual patients. Lenient rate management is easy to achieve and seems reasonably safe for certain patients, although the optimum rate varies with individual comorbidities. Because safer and more effective pharmacologic and interventional therapies are now available, an individualized approach to atrial fibrillation management is essential.

Cost of atrial fibrillation: invasive vs non-invasive management in 2012

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia. It places an enormous burden on the patients, caregivers and the society at large. As a chronic illness, AF accrues significant costs related to clinical presentation, complications and loss of productivity. Novel invasive approaches to AF promise a cure in some patients and a significant reduction in AF burden in others, but are very expensive. This paper will address the cost of conventional and invasive strategies in AF care and will review the evidence on the comparative cost effectiveness of these approaches.

2012 HRS/EHRA/ECAS expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: recommendations for patient selection, procedural techniques, patient management and follow-up, definitions, endpoints, and research trial design

This is a report of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) Task Force on Catheter and Surgical Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation, developed in partnership with the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Cardiac Arrhythmia Society (ECAS), and in collaboration with the American College of Cardiology (ACC), American Heart Association (AHA), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS). This is endorsed by the governing bodies of the ACC Foundation, the AHA, the ECAS, the EHRA, the STS, the APHRS, and the HRS.

Costs and clinical consequences of suboptimal atrial fibrillation management

Atrial fibrillation (AF) places a considerable burden on the US health care system, society, and individual patients due to its associated morbidity, mortality, and reduced health-related quality of life. AF increases the risk of stroke, which often results in lengthy hospital stays, increased disability, and long-term care, all of which impact medical costs. An expected increase in the prevalence of AF and incidence of AF-related stroke underscores the need for optimal management of this disorder. Although AF treatment strategies have been proven effective in clinical trials, data show that patients still receive suboptimal treatment. Adherence to AF treatment guidelines will help to optimize treatment and reduce costs due to AF-associated events; new treatments for AF show promise for future reductions in disease and cost burden due to improved tolerability profiles. Additional research is necessary to compare treatment costs and outcomes of new versus existing agents; an immediate effort to optimize treatment based on existing evidence and guidelines is critical to reducing the burden of AF.

Cost considerations in the management of atrial fibrillation - impact of dronedarone

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia. It is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. At the societal level, AF carries an enormous cost. Strategies aimed at reducing AF morbidity and mortality and containing the associated fiscal burden are of paramount importance. This review will discuss AF treatment strategies and economics, focusing on the impact of dronedarone, a novel antiarrhythmic agent.

A review of the cost of atrial fibrillation

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review and synthesize the literature on the costs of atrial fibrillation (AF) with attention to study design and costing methods, geography, and intervention approaches.

METHODS

A systematic search for previously published studies reporting the costs for AF patients was conducted. Data were analyzed in three steps: first by evaluating overall system costs; second by evaluating the relative contribution of specific cost components; and third by examining variations across study designs, across primary treatment approach, and by geography. Finally, a specific review of the treatment costs associated with anticoagulation treatment was examined given the clinical importance and attention given to these costs in the literature.

RESULTS

The literature search resulted in 115 articles. On review of the abstracts or full text of these articles, 21 articles met all study criteria and reported on health system AF-related direct costs. A further six articles focused exclusively on anticoagulation costs for patients with AF. The overall average annual system cost across 27 estimates obtained from the literature was $5450 (SD = $3624) in 2010 Canadian dollars and ranged from a low of $1,632 to a high of $21,099. About one-third of these costs could be attributed to anticoagulation management. The largest cost component was acute care, followed by outpatient and physician and then medication-related costs.

CONCLUSION

AF-related medical costs are high, reflecting resource-intensive and long-term treatments including anticoagulation treatment. These costs, accompanied with increasing prevalence, justify increased attention to the management of patients with AF. Future studies of AF cost should ensure a broad assessment of the incremental direct medical and societal cost associated with this diagnosis.

Comparison of rate control versus rhythm control for management of atrial fibrillation in patients with coexisting heart failure: a cost-effectiveness analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare lifetime costs and health outcomes of rate control versus rhythm control for management of atrial fibrillation in patients with coexisting heart failure from the third-party payer perspective.

DESIGN

A Markov decision analysis model constructed from costs, utility, and transition probability inputs obtained from randomized clinical trials and publically available databases.

PATIENTS

A simulated cohort aged 65 years or older with persistent or paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and heart failure.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Markov states for rhythm control were cardioversion plus amiodarone and maintenance amiodarone, and those for rate control were β-blocker, digoxin, and calcium channel blocker. Transition states included treatment success, hospitalizations for atrial fibrillation and/or heart failure, and severe adverse effects. Economic inputs included cost for drugs, cost of hospitalizations for atrial fibrillation and/or heart failure, and cost of management of severe adverse effects. Costs were measured in 2009 U.S. dollars, and clinical outcomes in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). One-way and multivariable sensitivity analyses were conducted. Uncertainty intervals (UIs) were obtained from probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Rate control was found to be less costly and more effective than rhythm control. Base case and probabilistic sensitivity analyses cost and effectiveness values for rate control were $7231 (95% UI $5517-9016) and 2.395 QALYs (95% UI 2.366-2.424 QALYs); whereas those for rhythm control were $16,291 (95% UI $11,033-21,434) and 2.197 QALYs (95% UI 2.155-2.237 QALYs). No critical values were found for any model parameters in the one-way sensitivity analyses. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that rate control was considered cost-effective in 100% of cases at willingness-to-pay ratios between $0 and $200,000/QALY.

CONCLUSION

Rate control is less costly and more effective than rhythm control and should be the initial treatment for atrial fibrillation among patients with coexisting heart failure.