Cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency catheter ablation for the treatment of atrial fibrillation in the United Kingdom

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 evaluation in cardiac electrophysiology: Determining the value of emerging technologies

Cardiac electrophysiology is a constantly evolving speciality that has benefited from technological innovation and refinements over the past several decades. Despite the potential of these technologies to reshape patient care, their upfront costs pose a challenge to health policymakers who are responsible for the assessment of the novel technology in the context of increasingly limited resources. In this context, it is critical for new therapies or technologies to demonstrate that the measured improvement in patients' outcomes for the cost of achieving that improvement is within conventional benchmarks for acceptable health care value. The field of Health Economics, specifically economic evaluation methods, facilitates this assessment of value in health care. In this review, we provide an overview of the basic principles of economic evaluation and provide historical applications within the field of cardiac electrophysiology. Specifically, the cost-effectiveness of catheter ablation for both atrial fibrillation (AF) and ventricular tachycardia, novel oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in AF, left atrial appendage occlusion devices, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy will be reviewed.

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.

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.

A randomized ablation-based atrial fibrillation rhythm control versus rate control trial in patients with heart failure and high burden atrial fibrillation: The RAFT-AF trial rationale and design

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are 2 cardiac conditions that are increasing in prevalence and incidence. The 2 conditions frequently coexist, and are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Catheter ablation of AF has been successfully performed in patients with HF, with an improvement in HF and AF, when compared to amiodarone, but further data is required to compare this to rate control. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to determine whether AF treated by catheter ablation, with or without antiarrhythmic drugs reduces all-cause mortality and hospitalizations for HF as compared with rate control in patients with HF and a high burden AF. METHODS: This is a multi-center prospective randomized open blinded endpoint (PROBE) study. Patients with NYHA class II-III HF (HF with reduced ejection fraction (<35%) or HF with preserved ejection fraction), and high burden AF are included in the trial. Patients are randomized to either rate control or catheter ablation-based AF rhythm control in a 1:1 ratio. Patients in the rate control group receive optimal HF therapy and rate control measures to achieve a resting hazard ratio (HR) < 80 bpm and 6-minute walk HR < 110 bpm. Patients randomized to catheter ablation-based AF rhythm control group receive optimal HF therapy and one or more aggressive catheter ablation, which include PV antral ablation and LA substrate ablation with or without adjunctive antiarrhythmic drug. The primary outcome is a composite of all-cause mortality and hospitalization for heart failure defined as an admission to a health care facility. The sample size is 600. Enrolment has been completed.

Cost Effectiveness Analysis and Payment Policy Recommendation-Population-Based Survey with Big Data Methodology for Readmission Prevention of Patients with Paroxysmal Supraventricular Tachycardia treated with Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation

Recurrence of paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT) has been reported to be lower in patients treated with radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) than in those who are not. Few population-based surveys have stated the cost-effectiveness related to this treatment. We, therefore, performed a nationwide retrospective study using National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) data from 2001–2012 in Taiwan. The incidence of PSVT-related admissions was computed from patients’ first admission for a primary PSVT diagnosis. There were 21,086 patients hospitalized due to first-time PSVT, of whom 13,075 underwent RFCA, with 374 recurrences (2.86%). In contrast, 1751 (21.86%) of the remaining 8011 patients who did not receive RFCA, most of whom had financial concerns, experienced PSVT recurrence. The relative PSVT recurrence risk in those who did not receive RFCA was 7.6 times (95% CI: 6.67–8.33) that of those who did undergo RFCA. In conclusion, the PSVT recurrence rate was much higher in patients who did not receive RFCA at their first admission. Furthermore, RFCA proved cost-effective, with the ratio of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and gross domestic product (GDP) being only 1.15. To prevent readmission and avoid incremental cost, the authority could provide a financial supplement for every patient so that the procedure is performed, reducing the PSVT-recurrence life-years (disease-specific DALY).

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Cryoballoon Ablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation in China: Results Based on Real-World Data

BACKGROUND

Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) presents a significant economic burden to the healthcare system. Catheter ablations is a commonly adopted treatment for paroxysmal AF.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost effectiveness of cryoballoon ablation versus radiofrequency ablation in patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal AF in a tertiary hospital in China.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to study the effects and costs. Cost and probability input data were obtained mainly from a retrospective real-world study conducted in a tertiary hospital. Propensity score matching was used to overcome retrospective bias. Input data gaps were remedied by means of literature review and advice from experts. A simulation was performed for the post-procedure lifetime years. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis of a lifetime time horizon, a patient treated with cryoballoon ablation was associated with 7.85 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and ¥132 222 ($19 913) total costs, whereas a radiofrequency ablation treated patient was associated with 7.71 QALYs and ¥147 304 ($22 184) total costs. The cryoballoon group had slightly better health outcomes (with a difference of 0.14 QALY) and lower total costs (with a difference of ¥15 082) (USD $2 271), and it may be considered as cost-effective or cost-saving strategy (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio -¥110 158 [$16 590] per QALY) for the management of paroxysmal AF. Different scenarios were tested with sensitivity analyses, but still, the outcomes remained cost-effective or cost-saving for cryoballoon ablation.

CONCLUSIONS

An economic evaluation based on real-world data suggests that, relative to radiofrequency ablation, cryoballoon ablation may be considered as a more cost-effective or cost-saving long-term strategy for drug-refractory paroxysmal AF in this tertiary hospital in China. However, further evidence is needed using data from large-scale studies in order to reflect a national perspective.

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.

Amaze: a double-blind, multicentre randomised controlled trial to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adding an ablation device-based maze procedure as an adjunct to routine cardiac surgery for patients with pre-existing atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) can be treated using a maze procedure during planned cardiac surgery, but the effect on clinical patient outcomes, and the cost-effectiveness compared with surgery alone, are uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether or not the maze procedure is safe, improves clinical and patient outcomes and is cost-effective for the NHS in patients with AF.

DESIGN

Multicentre, Phase III, pragmatic, double-blind, parallel-arm randomised controlled trial. Patients were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis using random permuted blocks, stratified for surgeon and planned procedure.

SETTING

Eleven acute NHS specialist cardiac surgical centres.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged ≥ 18 years, scheduled for elective or in-house urgent cardiac surgery, with a documented history (> 3 months) of AF.

INTERVENTIONS

Routine cardiac surgery with or without an adjunct maze procedure administered by an AF ablation device.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes were return to sinus rhythm (SR) at 12 months and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over 2 years after randomisation. Secondary outcomes included return to SR at 2 years, overall and stroke-free survival, drug use, quality of life (QoL), cost-effectiveness and safety.

RESULTS

Between 25 February 2009 and 6 March 2014, 352 patients were randomised to the control (n = 176) or experimental (n = 176) arms. The odds ratio (OR) for return to SR at 12 months was 2.06 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 3.54; p = 0.0091]. The mean difference (95% CI) in QALYs at 2 years between the two trial arms (maze/control) was -0.025 (95% CI 0.129 to 0.078; p = 0.6319). The OR for SR at 2 years was 3.24 (95% CI 1.76 to 5.96). The number of patients requiring anticoagulant drug use was significantly lower in the maze arm from 6 months after the procedure. There were no significant differences between the two arms in operative or overall survival, stroke-free survival, need for cardioversion or permanent pacemaker implants, New York Heart Association Functional Classification (for heart failure), EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version score and Short Form questionnaire-36 items score at any time point. Sixty per cent of patients in each trial arm had a serious adverse event (p = 1.000); most events were mild, but 71 patients (42.5%) in the maze arm and 84 patients (45.5%) in the control arm had moderately severe events; 31 patients (18.6%) in the maze arm and 38 patients (20.5%) in the control arm had severe events. The mean additional cost of the maze procedure was £3533 (95% CI £1321 to £5746); the mean difference in QALYs was -0.022 (95% CI -0.1231 to 0.0791). The maze procedure was not cost-effective at £30,000 per QALY over 2 years in any analysis. In a small substudy, the active left atrial ejection fraction was smaller than that of the control patients (mean difference of -8.03, 95% CI -12.43 to -3.62), but within the predefined clinically equivalent range.

LIMITATIONS

Low recruitment, early release of trial summaries and intermittent resource-use collection may have introduced bias and imprecise estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

Ablation can be practised safely in routine NHS cardiac surgical settings and increases return to SR rates, but not survival or QoL up to 2 years after surgery. Lower anticoagulant drug use and recovery of left atrial function support anticoagulant drug withdrawal provided that good atrial function is confirmed.

FURTHER WORK

Continued follow-up and long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis. Comparison of ablation methods.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN82731440.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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.

Catheter Ablation versus Thoracoscopic Surgical Ablation in Long Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation (CASA-AF): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation is the commonest arrhythmia which raises the risk of heart failure, thromboembolic stroke, morbidity and death. Pharmacological treatments of this condition are focused on heart rate control, rhythm control and reduction in risk of stroke. Selective ablation of cardiac tissues resulting in isolation of areas causing atrial fibrillation is another treatment strategy which can be delivered by two minimally invasive interventions: percutaneous catheter ablation and thoracoscopic surgical ablation. The main purpose of this trial is to compare the effectiveness and safety of these two interventions.

METHODS/DESIGN

Catheter Ablation versus Thoracoscopic Surgical Ablation in Long Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation (CASA-AF) is a prospective, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial within three NHS tertiary cardiovascular centres specialising in treatment of atrial fibrillation. Eligible adults (n = 120) with symptomatic, long-standing, persistent atrial fibrillation will be randomly allocated to either catheter ablation or thoracoscopic ablation in a 1:1 ratio. Pre-determined lesion sets will be delivered in each treatment arm with confirmation of appropriate conduction block. All patients will have an implantable loop recorder (ILR) inserted subcutaneously immediately following ablation to enable continuous heart rhythm monitoring for at least 12 months. The devices will be programmed to detect episodes of atrial fibrillation and atrial tachycardia ≥ 30 s in duration. The patients will be followed for 12 months, completing appropriate clinical assessments and questionnaires every 3 months. The ILR data will be wirelessly transmitted daily and evaluated every month for the duration of the follow-up. The primary endpoint in the study is freedom from atrial fibrillation and atrial tachycardia at the end of the follow-up period.

DISCUSSION

The CASA-AF Trial is a National Institute for Health Research-funded study that will provide first-class evidence on the comparative efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of thoracoscopic surgical ablation and conventional percutaneous catheter ablation for long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation. In addition, the results of the trial will provide information on the effects on patients' quality of life.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN18250790 . Registered on 24 April 2015.

Recognition and treatment of sleep-disordered breathing: an important component of chronic disease management

Sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) is a highly prevalent condition, and is associated with many debilitating chronic diseases. The role of untreated obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in arterial hypertension has been recognized in international guidelines. Treatment with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is associated with clinically-relevant reductions in blood pressure. In heart failure (HF), SDB is associated with worse prognosis and increased mortality. Major HF guidelines recommend that patients should be treated for sleep apnea to improve their HF status. Severe OSA increases the risk of arrhythmias, including atrial fibrillation, influences risk management in stroke, and is highly prevalent in patients with type 2 diabetes. Effective treatment with CPAP improves the success of antiarrhythmic interventions, improves outcomes in stroke and reduces hyperglycemia in diabetes. Patients with coronary artery disease also have a high prevalence of SDB, which is independently associated with worse outcomes. The role of CPAP for secondary cardiovascular prevention remains to be determined. Data from large, well-conducted clinical trials have shown that noninvasive ventilation, targeted to markedly reduce hypercapnia, significantly improves survival and reduces readmission in stable hypercapnic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The association of SDB with chronic diseases contributes to the high healthcare costs incurred by SDB patients. SDB also has an important negative impact on quality of life, which is reversed by CPAP treatment. The high prevalence of SDB, and its association with diseases that cause significant morbidity and mortality, suggest that the diagnosis and management of SDB is an important therapeutic goal. First, adherent CPAP treatment significantly improves the quality of life of all patients with SDB; second, it eliminates the negative impact of untreated SDB on any associated chronic diseases; and third, it significantly reduces the increased costs of all hospital and medical services directly associated with untreated SDB. In short, the recognition and treatment of SDB is vital for the continued health and wellbeing of individual patients with SDB.

Cost-Effectiveness and Clinical Effectiveness of the Risk Factor Management Clinic in Atrial Fibrillation: The CENT Study

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) imposes a substantial cost burden on the healthcare system. Weight and risk factor management (RFM) reduces AF burden and improves the outcomes of AF ablation.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to evaluate the cost and clinical effectiveness of integrating RFM into the overall management of AF.

METHODS

Of 1,415 consecutive patients with symptomatic AF, 825 patients had body mass index ≥27 kg/m². After screening for exclusion criteria, the final cohort comprised 355 patients: 208 patients who opted for RFM and 147 control subjects and were followed by 3 to 6 monthly clinic review, 7-day Holter monitoring, and AF Symptom Score. A decision analytical model calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of cost per unit of global well-being gained and unit of AF burden reduced.

RESULTS

There were no differences in baseline characteristics or follow-up duration (p = NS). Arrhythmia-free survival was better in the RFM compared with control subjects (Kaplan-Meier: 79% vs. 44%; p < 0.001). At follow-up, RFM group had less unplanned specialist visits (0.19 ± 0.40 vs. 1.94 ± 2.00; p < 0.001), hospitalizations (0.74 ± 1.3 vs. 1.05 ± 1.60; p = 0.03), cardioversions (0.89 ± 1.50 vs. 1.51 ± 2.30; p = 0.002), emergency presentations (0.18 ± 0.50 vs. 0.76 ± 1.20; p < 0.001), and ablation procedures (0.60 ± 0.69 vs. 0.72 ± 0.86; p = 0.03). Antihypertensive (0.53 ± 0.70 vs. 0.78 ± 0.60; p = 0.04) and antiarrhythmic (0.26 ± 0.50 vs. 0.91 ± 0.60; p = 0.003) use declined in RFM. The RFM group had an increase of 0.1930 quality-adjusted life years and a cost saving of $12,094 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $62,653 saved per quality-adjusted life years gained).

CONCLUSIONS

A structured physician-directed RFM program is clinically effective and cost saving.

Efficacy and safety of ablation for people with non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

The optimal rhythm management strategy for people with non-paroxysmal (persistent or long-standing persistent) atrial fibrilation is currently not well defined. Antiarrhythmic drugs have been the mainstay of therapy. But recently, in people who have not responded to antiarrhythmic drugs, the use of ablation (catheter and surgical) has emerged as an alternative to maintain sinus rhythm to avoid long-term atrial fibrillation complications. However, evidence from randomised trials about the efficacy and safety of ablation in non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation is limited.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of ablation (catheter and surgical) in people with non-paroxysmal (persistent or long-standing persistent) atrial fibrillation compared to antiarrhythmic drugs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, conference abstracts, clinical trial registries, and Health Technology Assessment Database. We searched these databases from their inception to 1 April 2016. We used no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials evaluating the effect of radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) or surgical ablation compared with antiarrhythmic drugs in adults with non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, regardless of any concomitant underlying heart disease, with at least 12 months of follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We evaluated risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) a using fixed-effect model when heterogeneity was low (I² <= 40%) and a random-effects model when heterogeneity was moderate or substantial (I² > 40%). Using the GRADE approach, we evaluated the quality of the evidence and used the GRADE profiler (GRADEpro) to import data from Review Manager 5 to create 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three randomised trials with 261 participants (mean age: 60 years) comparing RFCA (159 participants) to antiarrhythmic drugs (102) for non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. We generally assessed the included studies as having low or unclear risk of bias across multiple domains, with reported outcomes generally lacking precision due to low event rates. Evidence showed that RFCA was superior to antiarrhythmic drugs in achieving freedom from atrial arrhythmias (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.88; 3 studies, 261 participants; low-quality evidence), reducing the need for cardioversion (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.82; 3 studies, 261 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and reducing cardiac-related hospitalisation (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.72; 2 studies, 216 participants; low-quality evidence) at 12 months follow-up. There was substantial uncertainty surrounding the effect of RFCA regarding significant bradycardia (or need for a pacemaker) (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.63; 3 studies, 261 participants; low-quality evidence), periprocedural complications, and other safety outcomes (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.16 to 5.68; 3 studies, 261 participants; very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people with non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, evidence suggests a superiority of RFCA to antiarrhythmic drugs in achieving freedom from atrial arrhythmias, reducing the need for cardioversion, and reducing cardiac-related hospitalisations. There was uncertainty surrounding the effect of RFCA with significant bradycardia (or need for a pacemaker), periprocedural complications, and other safety outcomes. Evidence should be interpreted with caution, as event rates were low and quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low.

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.

A cost-utility analysis for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in combination with warfarin and dabigatran based on the CHADS2 score in Japan

BACKGROUND

We aimed to clarify the cost-effectiveness of an expensive combination therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF) using both catheter ablation and dabigatran compared with warfarin at each CHADS₂ score for patients in Japan.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to analyze costs and quality-adjusted life years associated with AF therapeutic options with a time horizon of 10 years. The target population was 60-year-old patients with paroxysmal AF. The indication for anticoagulation was determined according to the Japanese guideline. Anticoagulation-related data were derived from the RE-LY study and the AF recurrence rate was set at 2.7% per month during the first 12 months and at 0.40% per month afterwards. Stroke risk was determined according to AF recurrence, anticoagulation, and CHADS₂ score. The risks for stroke recurrence and stroke death were also considered. Costs were calculated from the healthcare payer's perspective, and only direct medical costs were included.

RESULTS

Warfarin was the most preferred option for patients with a CHADS₂ score of 0 from a health economics aspect. Ablation under warfarin was preferred for a CHADS₂ score of 1-3, while ablation under dabigatran was preferred for a CHADS₂ score ≥4. The quality of life score for AF had the largest impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in the analysis between the anticoagulation arm and the anticoagulation+ablation arm for a CHADS₂ score of 2. Within the range of the Japanese willingness-to-pay threshold (¥5,000,000), the ablation+warfarin arm became the best option with its probability of 81.7% for a CHADS₂ score of 2; the dabigatran+ablation arm was the most preferred option with its probability of 56.1% for a CHADS₂ score of 4.

CONCLUSIONS

Ablation under dabigatran therapy is an expensive therapeutic option, but it might benefit patients with a low quality of life and a high CHADS₂ score.

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.

Effect of catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic drugs on atrial fibrillation: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The aim of the present study was to compare the health outcomes of catheter ablation therapy against those of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) in the management of atrial fibrillation (AF). The effects of catheter ablation and AADs on a number of parameters were compared, including AF recurrence, all-cause mortality, stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) and quality of life (QoL). A systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted to obtain relevant randomized controlled trials. The relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of AF recurrence, all-cause mortality and stroke/TIA between catheter ablation and AADs were subsequently calculated. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% CIs were used to evaluate the QoL between the two therapy groups. In total, 11 randomized trials, which included 1,763 AF patients, were eligible for the meta-analysis. Overall, the results indicated that catheter ablation produces superior outcomes compared with AADs in reducing AF recurrence (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.38-0.58; P<0.001) and improving the QoL (physical component summary: WMD, 2.23; 95% CI, 0.24-4.21; P=0.03; mental component summary: WMD, 2.69; 95% CI, 0.04-5.35; P=0.05). However, no statistically significant difference was identified between the two groups with regard to the incidence of all-cause mortality (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.37-2.06; P=0.76) and stroke/TIA (RR, 1.83; 95% CI, 0.73-4.55; P=0.20). In summary, catheter ablation was demonstrated to markedly reduce AF recurrence and improve QoL when compared with AAD therapy. However, the incidence rates of all-cause mortality and stroke/TIA were comparable between catheter ablation and AAD therapy.

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.

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).

The Effects of Catheter Ablation Therapy on Medication Use and Expenditures in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia encountered in clinical practice. Catheter ablation has become an important treatment option for many AF patients. Catheter ablation has been hypothesized to reduce the need for continued medical therapy for patients with AF, but there are few empirical data which demonstrate this. Objective: The objective of this study was to estimate the impact of catheter ablation on antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) utilization and total drug expenditures among AF patients. Methods: A retrospective analysis using the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan® Research Database was performed. Patients with AF and a catheter ablation procedure who had continuous enrollment in the database 6 months prior to their first ablation and a minimum of 1-year follow-up post first ablation were compared to AF patients who were treated with AADs and not ablation. Propensity matching was used to account for baseline differences between groups, and multivariable regression models adjusted for patient characteristics and baseline healthcare resource utilization. Sub-analyses were performed for patients age ≥65. Results: AF patients treated with catheter ablation had significantly lower AAD utilization and total prescription drug costs than those treated with AADs only. These results persisted for the subset of patients age ≥65. The effects were strongest in the matched sample, where approximately 30% of ablation patients discontinued use of rhythm medication after receiving catheter ablation. Per-patient total medication expenditures were reduced by $800 to $1,200 per year in the matched sample. Conclusion: Catheter ablation for AF reduced AAD utilization and total prescription drug expenditures in a sustainable fashion up to 3 years post ablation. This reduction was consistent and significant in both the non-Medicare and Medicare populations.

Making use of equity sensitive QALYs: a case study on identifying the worse off across diseases

BACKGROUND

Resource allocation decisions currently lack standard quantitative methods for incorporating concerns about the worse off when analysing the cost-effectiveness of medical interventions.

OBJECTIVE

To explore and demonstrate how to identify who are the worse off without a new intervention by measuring lifetime Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) for patients across different conditions, and compare the results to using proportional shortfall of QALYs.

METHODS

Case study of eight condition-intervention pairs that are relevant to priority setting in Norway; childhood deafness (unilateral cochlear implant), unruptured cerebral aneurysm (coiling), morbid obesity (RY gastric bypass), adult deafness (unilateral cochlear implant), atrial fibrillation (catheter ablation), hip osteoarthritis (hip replacement), rheumatoid arthritis (TNF inhibitor) and acute stroke (stroke unit). We extracted prospective QALYs without and with new interventions from published health technology assessments and economic evaluations.

RESULTS

Among the eight cases, the lifetime QALY method and the proportional shortfall method yielded conflicting worse-off rank orders. Particularly two conditions had a substantial shift in ranking across the applications of the two methods: childhood deafness and acute stroke. Deaf children had the lowest expected lifetime QALYs (38.5 without a cochlear implant) and were worst off according to the lifetime approach, while patients with acute stroke had the second-highest lifetime QALYs (76.4 without stroke units). According to proportional shortfall of QALYs, patients with acute stroke were ranked as worse off than deaf children, which seems counterintuitive.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that it is feasible to identify who are the worse off empirically by the application of lifetime QALYs and proportional shortfalls. These methods ease further examination of whether there is a true conflict between maximization and equity or whether these two concerns actually coincide in real world cases. It is yet to be solved whether proportional prospective health losses are more important than absolute shortfalls in expected lifetime health in judgements about who are worse off.

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 European Heart Rhythm Association symptom classification for atrial fibrillation: validation and improvement through a simple modification

Aims

To validate the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) symptom classification in atrial fibrillation (AF) and test whether its discriminative ability could be improved by a simple modification.

Methods and results

We compared the EHRA classification with three quality of life (QoL) measures: the AF-specific Atrial Fibrillation Effect on QualiTy-of-life (AFEQT) questionnaire; two components of the EQ-5D instrument, a health-related utility which can be used to calculate cost-effectiveness, and the visual analogue scale (VAS) which demonstrates patients' own assessment of health status. We then proposed a simple modification [modified EHRA (mEHRA)] to improve discrimination at the point where major treatment decisions are made. quality of life data and clinician-allocated EHRA class were prospectively collected on 362 patients with AF. A step-wise, negative association was seen between the EHRA class and both the AFEQT and the VAS scores. Health-related utility was only significantly different between Classes 2 and 3 (P < 0.001). We developed and validated the mEHRA score separating Class 2 (symptomatic AF not limiting daily activities), based on whether the patients were ‘troubled by their AF’ (Class 2b) or not (Class 2a). This produced two distinct groups with lower AFEQT and VAS scores and, importantly, both clinically and statistically significant lower health utility (Δutility 0.9, P = 0.01) in Class 2b than Class 2a.

Conclusion

Based on patients' own assessment of their health status and the disease-specific AFEQT, the EHRA score can be considered a useful semi-quantitative classification. The mEHRA score has a clearer separation in health utility to assess the cost efficacy of interventions such as ablation, where Class 2b symptoms appear to be the appropriate treatment threshold.

The effects of wenxin keli on p-wave dispersion and maintenance of sinus rhythm in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objective. To evaluate the beneficial and adverse effects of Wenxin Keli (WXKL), alone or combined with Western medicine, on P-wave dispersion (Pd) and maintenance of sinus rhythm for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF). Methods. Seven major electronic databases were searched to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) designed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of WXKL, alone or combined with Western medicine, for PAF, with Pd or maintenance rate of sinus rhythm as the main outcome measure. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using criteria from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions, version 5.1.0, and analysed using RevMan 5.1.0 software. Results. Fourteen RCTs of WXKL were included. The methodological quality of the trials was generally evaluated as low. The results of meta-analysis showed that WXKL, alone or combined with Western medicine, was more effective in Pd and the maintenance of sinus rhythm, compared with no medicine or Western medicine alone, in patients with PAF or PAF complicated by other diseases. Seven of the trials reported adverse events, indicating that the safety of WXKL is still uncertain. Conclusions. WXKL, alone or combined with Western medicine, appears to be more effective in improving Pd as well as maintenance of sinus rhythm in patients with PAF and its complications.

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.

Comparing Antiarrhythmic Drugs and Catheter Ablation for Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation

In the past years, catheter ablation has evolved into an effective treatment option for symptomatic, drug-resistant atrial fibrillation (AF) and it has recently been implemented as a primary treatment strategy for patients with paroxysmal AF. Although a significant number of studies have evaluated the potential benefits of catheter ablation compared with anti-arrhythmic drug (AAD)-therapy, to date, there are only a small number of randomised controlled trials in the literature, and several issues remain unsolved. The aim of this review is to analyze the current literature regarding this important issue and further discuss the question, whether catheter ablation may be more beneficial when compared to AAD therapy.

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.

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.

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.

What are the costs of atrial fibrillation?

The costs of atrial fibrillation (AF) are linked to the general cost of managing AF patients in different health-care systems, as well as the cost of managing AF-related complications (e.g. hospitalizations and long-term complications, such as stroke). In addition, indirect medical costs, such as care for patients who do not recuperate fully from a vascular event, and non-medical costs such as loss of work force add to the costs of AF. All estimations for cost of AF and cost of AF therapy are based on assumptions and markedly influenced by these cost determinants. This urges for extreme caution not to take cost estimates at their absolute values. In fact, even relative comparisons between interventions may have different consequences in terms of direct and indirect costs in different health-care settings. While newer therapeutic options appear to increase the cost of AF management, newer antithrombotic substances and adequate rhythm control therapy also carry the promise of preventing the two major drivers of AF-related cost, hospitalizations and AF-related complications. Formal assessment of the cost of AF requires adjustment to local practice, and more data are clearly needed especially from primary care to better estimate the 'real' cost impact of AF.

[Atrial fibrillation in 2010: an increasing morbidity and mortality burden]

AF, a frequent and banal arrhythmia, is a debilitating and costly disease. The majority of patients with AF are aged 60 to 80 years, but the prevalence is as high as 10% after 80 years and the incidence increases in recent years in an "epidemic" way. AF is responsible for an excess of mortality with an relative risk between 2 and 4 depending of age and sex, especially as cardiovascular risk factors are associated. The morbidity is also important, with cerebral systemic embolism (2-3% per year), heart failure (1 patient for 3), and a total risk of hospitalization from 20 to 30% per year for AF patients with high cardiovascular risks. Whatever be the reasons for hospitalization, cardiovascular or not, in connection with AF or not, these reasons must be well analyzed, so that the risk of occurrence of hospitalization should reflect the efficacy of anti-arrhythmic drugs, or of their complications, or of the comorbidities associated with AF, so common in these older subjects. This morbidity-mortality composite endpoint should now be used in AF randomized trials, as occurring more frequently than mortality (4% per year) or embolic or hemorrhagic usual endpoints. Medico-economic consequences are significant and AF cost is almost 1% of total health spending, with 20% to 30% of the cost for anti-arrhythmic or anti-thrombotic drugs, and 50 to 60% for hospitalizations. Prevention of hospitalizations related to atrial fibrillation may represent a therapeutic target priority on the medico-economic ground.

Cost of AF Ablation: Where Do We Stand?

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common and frequently disabling chronic condition associated with significant patient morbidity and affecting an increasing stratum of our ageing society. Direct costs related to atrial fibrillation are comprised from direct cost of medical therapy, catheter ablation, and related hospitalizations and imaging procedures, with indirect costs related to complications of the primary therapeutic strategy, management of related conditions, as well as disability and loss in quality of life related to AF. Over the last decade, catheter ablation became a promising alternative to rate and rhythm control among symptomatic AF patients. The purpose of this paper is to describe the evidence on the financial implications related to ablation based on published data and authors' experience.