Dataset Information

Catheter ablation and healthcare utilization and cost among patients with paroxysmal versus persistent atrial fibrillation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Ablation reduces atrial fibrillation (AF) burden and improves health-related quality of life. The relationship between ablation, healthcare utilization, and AF type (paroxysmal AF [PAF] vs persistent AF [PsAF]) remains unclear.

Objective

To compare changes in AF-related healthcare utilization and costs from preablation to postablation among patients with PAF and PsAF.

Methods

Patients (2794 PAF, 1909 PsAF) undergoing ablation (2016-2018) were identified using the Optum database. Outcomes included inpatient admissions, emergency department (ED) visits, office visits, cardioversion, and antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) use. Costs (2018 US$) and outcomes were compared for the year before/after ablation using the McNemar test and Wilcoxon signed rank test.

Results

Compared to PAF patients, PsAF patients were older (68.6 ± 9.0 years vs 67.4 ± 9.9 years, P < .0001), were less commonly female (36.3% vs 44.1%, P < .0001), and more commonly had a CHA₂DS₂-VASc ≥ 3(71.2% vs 62.7%, P < .0001). The 12-month postablation costs were lower for AF-specific inpatient admissions (PAF -28%, PsAF -33%), ED visits (PAF -76%, PsAF -70%), AAD prescription fills (PAF -25%, PsAF -7%), and cardioversions (PAF -59%, PsAF -55%) as compared to 12 months before ablation. Although these reductions were observed for both PAF and PsAF patients, absolute costs remained higher for PsAF. Total AF costs were higher during the 1 year after ablation vs before ablation (PAF: 11%, P < .0001; PsAF: 10%, P < .0001) owing to repeat ablation. However, in the 18-month follow-up analysis, postablation costs were overall reduced (PAF: 35%, P < .0001; PsAF: 34%, P < .0001), despite including costs from repeat ablation.

Conclusion

Significant reductions in healthcare utilization and costs were observed among PAF and PsAF patients undergoing ablation. These data suggest a strategy of earlier ablation may reduce long-term healthcare utilization and costs.

SUBMITTER: Friedman DJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8183841 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most prevalent cardiac arrhythmia (Calkins H, et al. 2012). There are various methods to treat AF of which Ablation is one of the most effective. We aimed to assess the cost-utility of Cryoballoon ablation (CBA) compared to Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) to treat patients with paroxysmal AF in Iran. A cost-utility analysis was done using a decision-analytic model based on a lifetime Markov structure which was drawn considering the nature of interventions and the natural progress of the disease. Costs data were extracted from medical records of 47 patients of Shahid Rajaie Cardiovascular Medical Center in Tehran in 2019. Parameters and variables such as transition probabilities, risks related to side effects, mortality rates, and utility values were extracted from the available evidence. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was also done. TreeAge pro-2020 software was used in all stages of analysis. In the base case analysis, the CBA strategy was associated with higher cost and effectiveness than RFA, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $11,223 per Quality-adjusted life year (QALY), which compared to Iran's GDP per capita as Willingness to pay threshold, CBA was not cost-effective. On the other hand, considering twice the GDP per capita as a threshold, CBA was cost-effective. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the findings of base case analysis, showed that RFA was cost-effective and the probability of cost-effectiveness was 59%. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the results of the study have the highest sensitivity to changes in the RFA cost variable. Results of sensitivity analysis showed that the cost-effectiveness results were not robust and are sensitive to changes in variables changes. Primary results showed that CBA compared to RFA is not cost-effective in the treatment of AF considering one GDP per capita. But the sensitivity analysis results showed considerable sensitivity to changes of the ablation costs variable.