Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation Using Ablation Index-Guided Contact Force Ablation: A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison to Cryoballoon Ablation

Atrial fibrillation ablation with advanced radiofrequency catheter versus second-generation cryoballoon catheter

Aim: To compare cost and readmissions among atrial fibrillation (AF) patients undergoing ablation using the THERMOCOOL SMARTTOUCH™ SF (STSF) radiofrequency catheter versus the Arctic Front Advance™ (AFA) cryoballoon catheter. Patients & methods: The Premier Healthcare Database was used for the study purposes. Propensity score matching was used to match patients in the two groups. Costs and readmissions were assessed. A regression model was used for outcome assessment. Results: After propensity matching, 2767 patients were identified in each of the STSF and AFA cohorts. In the matched cohort, STSF patients had significantly lower supply costs than AFA patients. STSF patients had significantly lower 4-12-month AF-related inpatient readmissions compared with AFA patients (2.58% vs 3.99%; p = 0.0402). Costs of care summing index procedure and readmission costs were also lower for the STSF patients versus AFA patients. Conclusions: Patients who underwent AF ablation using the STSF catheter versus the AFA catheter had lower cost and AF-related readmissions.

Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation Using Ablation Index Versus Second Generation Cryoballoon in the Treatment of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison

Introduction

Both radiofrequency (RF) and cryoballoon (CB) ablation are treatment options for persistent atrial fibrillation (PsAF). An important recent innovation in RF ablation is Ablation Index (AI), known also as the VISITAG SURPOINT™ Module, a composite lesion quality marker whose use has been shown to significantly reduce the incidence of acute and late pulmonary vein (PV) reconnection and the recurrence of atrial arrhythmias in PsAF. Due to a lack of direct comparative evidence between the latest generations of technologies, there is uncertainty regarding the best treatment option in PsAF. The objective of the present study was to conduct a matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison (MAIC) using individual patient-level data (IPD) to assess the comparative effectiveness of the THERMOCOOL SMARTTOUCH™ Catheter or the THERMOCOOL SMARTTOUCH™ SF Catheter with AI/VISITAG SURPOINT™ Module (STAI) versus the second-generation CB catheter (Arctic Front Advance™; herein referred to as CB) with respect to 12-month atrial arrhythmia recurrence, fluoroscopy time, and procedural efficiency.

Methods

IPD for STAI were obtained from four investigator-initiated studies and were pooled. Comparable CB studies identified from a systematic literature review were also pooled. In the absence of a common treatment arm between STAI and CB studies, an unanchored MAIC was conducted. The primary analysis compared the pooled STAI IPD to the pooled CB cohort, with corrections for differences across trials, including eligibility criteria and patient baseline characteristics. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the primary analysis.

Results

In the primary analysis, which was adjusted for left atrial diameter (LAD), age, diabetes, and sex, STAI was associated with a statistically significant 65% relative reduction in the rate of arrhythmia recurrence compared to CB at 12-month follow-up (HR 0.35; 95% CI 0.23, 0.52). STAI was associated with shorter total fluoroscopy time than CB but longer procedure time. Results were consistent across scenario and sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

Radiofrequency ablation with AI significantly reduced atrial arrhythmia recurrence at 12-month follow-up and fluoroscopy time compared to CB, with longer procedure times.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01846-z.