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

2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 12, 2022, to November 3, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through November 2022, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Atrial fibrillation is the most sustained common arrhythmia, and its incidence and prevalence are increasing in the United States and globally. Recommendations from the "2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" and the "2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic risk assessment, anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion, atrial fibrillation catheter or surgical ablation, and risk factor modification and atrial fibrillation prevention have been developed.

2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 12, 2022, to November 3, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through November 2022, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Atrial fibrillation is the most sustained common arrhythmia, and its incidence and prevalence are increasing in the United States and globally. Recommendations from the "2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" and the "2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic risk assessment, anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion, atrial fibrillation catheter or surgical ablation, and risk factor modification and atrial fibrillation prevention have been developed.

Atrial fibrillation ablation in heart failure patients: Where do we stand in 2023? - State of the art review

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure are common overlapping cardiovascular disorders. Despite important therapeutic advances over the past several decades, controversy persists about whether a rate control or rhythm control approach constitutes the best option in this population. There is also considerable debate about whether antiarrhythmic drug therapy or ablation is the best approach when rhythm control is pursued.  A brief historical examination of the literature addressing this issue will be performed. An analysis of several important clinical outcomes observed in the prospective, randomized studies, which have compared AF ablation to non-ablation treatment options, will be discussed. This review will conclude with recommendations to guide clinicians on the status of AF ablation as a treatment option when considering management options in heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation.

Early offering transcatheter aortic valve replacement to patients with moderate aortic stenosis: quantifying costs and benefits - a Markov model-based simulation study

OBJECTIVE

Aortic stenosis (AS) is one of the most common acquired cardiac valvular diseases. The success of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for severe AS has led to increasing interest in its use to earlier disease-moderate AS (MAS).

DESIGN

Model-based study using a Markov microsimulation technique to evaluate the long-term costs and benefits associated with 'early' TAVI. Key data inputs were sourced from the international literature and costs were obtained from Australian sources.

SETTING

Australian health care system perspective.

PARTICIPANTS

10 000 hypothetical MAS patients with or without left ventricular diastolic dysfunction or impaired left ventricular ejection fraction.

INTERVENTION

Comparing early TAVI to medical management over a life time horizon for MAS patients aged >65 years. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of offering early TAVI in five scenarios (10%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 90% take-up rates).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure is quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). Secondary outcomes are life-years gained and the number of heart failure case avoided.

RESULTS

Offering early TAVI for MAS patients resulted in both higher healthcare costs and greater benefits (an increase of 3.02 QALYs or 3.99 life-years) per person treated. The ICUR was around $A10 867 and $A11 926 per QALY gained for all five scenarios, with the total cost of early TAVI to the healthcare system being anticipated to be up to $A3.66 billion. Sensitivity analyses indicated a 100% probability of being cost-effective with a willingness to pay threshold of $A50 000/QALY. The benefits remained, even with assumptions of high levels of repeat valve replacement after TAVI.

CONCLUSION

While ongoing randomised controlled trials will define the benefit of TAVI to MAS patients, these results suggest that this intervention is likely to be cost-effective.

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 rhythm control strategy: Ablation versus antiarrhythmic drugs for treating atrial fibrillation in Korea based on real-world data

Background

Ablation-based treatment has emerged as an alternative rhythm control strategy for symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF). Recent studies have demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of ablation compared with medical therapy in various circumstances. We assessed the economic comparison between ablation and medical therapy based on a nationwide real-world population.

Methods and findings

For 192,345 patients with new-onset AF (age ≥ 18 years) identified between August 2015 and July 2018 from the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA) database, medical resource use data were collected to compare AF patients that underwent ablation (N = 2,131) and those administered antiarrhythmic drugs (N = 8,048). Subsequently, a Markov chain Monte Carlo model was built. The patients had at least one risk factor for stroke, and the base-case used a 20-year time horizon, discounting at 4.5% annually. Transition probabilities and costs were estimated using the present data, and utilities were derived from literature review. The costs were converted to US $ (2019). Sensitivity analyses were performed using probabilistic and deterministic methods. The net costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) for antiarrhythmic drugs and ablation treatments were $37,421 and 8.8 QALYs and $39,820 and 9.3 QALYs, respectively. Compared with antiarrhythmic drugs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ablation was $4,739/QALY, which is lower than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $32,000/QALY.

Conclusion

In symptomatic AF patients with a stroke risk under the age of 75 years, ablation-based rhythm control is potentially a more economically attractive option compared with antiarrhythmic drug-based rhythm control in Korea.

A transitive perspective on the relief of psychosomatic symptoms

A key element of successful psychotherapy for the treatment of psychosomatic disorders is that patients recognize and change the meaning of their experiences. Such changes are brought about by appropriate verbal referencing of symptoms currently experienced within a given narrative. The present theoretical paper argues that changes are not based on better, more adaptive narratives per se, but on the transition (or linkage) process itself that is experienced between different narratives. This view is theoretically justified in various ways: first, it is accounted for through contemporary spatiotemporal neuroscience, which aims to connect mental and structural aspects via a common dynamic property or, according to Northoff, the "common currency" of a brain's orientation along its embeddedness in its contextual world, i.e., body and environment. Second, it is justified through the physics concept of "spontaneous symmetry breaking," which is used analogously to "suffering from symptoms." If the sufferer is willing to experience a process of "going back," that is, moving away from the previous narrative (or aspect) by verbally relating to the felt aspects of the symptom in question (i.e., approaching its meaning), they are moving toward symmetry or an underlying dynamic alignment with their world context. Clinical predictions are derived from the theoretical arguments.

Development and validation of a clinical predictive model for 1-year prognosis in coronary heart disease patients combine with acute heart failure

Background

The risk factors for acute heart failure (AHF) vary, reducing the accuracy and convenience of AHF prediction. The most common causes of AHF are coronary heart disease (CHD). A short-term clinical predictive model is needed to predict the outcome of AHF, which can help guide early therapeutic intervention. This study aimed to develop a clinical predictive model for 1-year prognosis in CHD patients combined with AHF.

Materials and methods

A retrospective analysis was performed on data of 692 patients CHD combined with AHF admitted between January 2020 and December 2020 at a single center. After systemic treatment, patients were discharged and followed up for 1-year for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The clinical characteristics of all patients were collected. Patients were randomly divided into the training (n = 484) and validation cohort (n = 208). Step-wise regression using the Akaike information criterion was performed to select predictors associated with 1-year MACE prognosis. A clinical predictive model was constructed based on the selected predictors. The predictive performance and discriminative ability of the predictive model were determined using the area under the curve, calibration curve, and clinical usefulness.

Results

On step-wise regression analysis of the training cohort, predictors for MACE of CHD patients combined with AHF were diabetes, NYHA ≥ 3, HF history, Hcy, Lp-PLA2, and NT-proBNP, which were incorporated into the predictive model. The AUC of the predictive model was 0.847 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.811–0.882] in the training cohort and 0.839 (95% CI: 0.780–0.893) in the validation cohort. The calibration curve indicated good agreement between prediction by nomogram and actual observation. Decision curve analysis showed that the nomogram was clinically useful.

Conclusion

The proposed clinical prediction model we have established is effective, which can accurately predict the occurrence of early MACE in CHD patients combined with AHF.

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 Versus Medical Therapy for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation from the Perspective of the UK

Randomised evidence supports an early rhythm control strategy as treatment for AF, and catheter ablation outperforms medical therapy in terms of effectiveness when studied as first- and second-line treatment. Despite evidence consistently showing that catheter ablation treatment is superior to medical therapy in most AF patients, only a small proportion receive ablation, in some cases after a prolonged trial of ineffective medical therapy. Health economics research in electrophysiology remains limited but is recognised as being important in influencing positive change to ensure early access to ablation services for all eligible patients. Such information has informed the updated recommendations from the recently published National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guideline on the diagnosis and management of AF, but increased awareness is needed to drive real-world adoption and to ensure patients are quickly referred to specialists. In this article, economic evaluations of catheter ablation versus medical therapy are reviewed.

Meta-Analysis of Catheter Ablation versus Medical Therapy for Heart Failure Complicated with Atrial Fibrillation

Objective

To compare the efficacy of catheter ablation and medical therapy in patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation.

Methods

We searched randomized controlled trials comparing catheter ablation versus medical therapy for heart failure and atrial fibrillation through PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Clinical Trials Database, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. Articles were investigated for their methodological quality using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of the bias assessment tool. Forest plots, funnel plots, and sensitivity analysis were also performed on the included articles. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals.

Results

Nine (9) studies were included in this study with 1131 patients. Meta-analysis showed a reduction in all-cause mortality from catheter ablation compared with medical therapy (RR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.37 to 0.76; P=0.0007) and improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (MD = 6.45, 95% CI = 3.49 to 9.41; P < 0.0001), 6-minute walking time (6MWT) (MD = 28.32, 95% CI = 17.77 to 38.87; P < 0.0001), and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) score (MD = 8.19, 95% CI = 0.30 to 16.08; P=0.04).

Conclusion

Catheter ablation had a better improvement than medical treatment in left ventricular ejection fraction, cardiac function, and exercise ability for atrial fibrillation and heart failure patients.

Cost-effectiveness of catheter ablation versus medical therapy for the treatment of atrial fibrillation in the United Kingdom

Introduction

Research evidence has shown that catheter ablation is a safe and superior treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF) compared to medical therapy, but real‐world practice has been slow to adopt an early interventional approach. This study aims to determine the cost effectiveness of catheter ablation compared to medical therapy from the perspective of the United Kingdom.

Methods

A patient‐level Markov health‐state transition model was used to conduct a cost‐utility analysis. The population included patients previously treated for AF with medical therapy, including those with heart failure (HF), simulated over a lifetime horizon. Data sources included published literature on utilization and cardiovascular event rates in real world patients, a systematic literature review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials for AF recurrence, and publicly available government data/reports on costs.

Results

Catheter ablation resulted in a favorable incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £8614 per additional quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained when compared to medical therapy. More patients in the medical therapy group failed rhythm control at any point compared to catheter ablation (72% vs. 24%) and at a faster rate (median time to treatment failure: 3.8 vs. 10 years). Additionally, catheter ablation was estimated to be more cost‐effective in patients with AF and HF (ICER = £6438) and remained cost‐effective over all tested time horizons (10, 15, and 20 years), with the ICER ranging from £9047–£15 737 per QALY gained.

Conclusion

Catheter ablation is a cost‐effective treatment for atrial fibrillation, compared to medical therapy, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service.

Cost-Utility of Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure: An Economic Evaluation

Background Recent trials comparing catheter ablation to medical therapy in patients with heart failure (HF) with symptomatic atrial fibrillation despite first-line management have demonstrated a reduction in adverse outcomes. We performed an economic evaluation to estimate the cost-utility of catheter ablation as second line therapy in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Methods and Results A Markov model with health states of alive, dead, and alive with amiodarone toxicity was constructed, using the perspective of the Canadian healthcare payer. Patients in the alive states were at risk of HF and non-HF hospitalizations. Parameters were obtained from randomized trials and Alberta health system data for costs and outcomes. A lifetime time horizon was adopted, with discounting at 3.0% annually. Probabilistic and 1-way sensitivity analyses were performed. Costs are reported in 2018 Canadian dollars. A patient treated with catheter ablation experienced lifetime costs of $64 960 and 5.63 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), compared with $49 865 and 5.18 QALYs for medical treatment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $35 360/QALY (95% CI, $21 518-77 419), with a 90% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000/QALY. A minimum mortality reduction of 28%, or a minimum duration of benefit of >1 to 2 years was required for catheter ablation to be attractive at this threshold. Conclusions Catheter ablation is likely to be cost-effective as a second line intervention for patients with HF with symptomatic atrial fibrillation, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $35 360/QALY, as long as over half of the relative mortality benefit observed in extant trials is borne out in future studies.

Differences in Healthcare Use Between Patients With Persistent and Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Catheter-Based Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: A Population-Based Cohort Study From Ontario, Canada

Background Patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing catheter-based AF ablation have lower success rates than those with paroxysmal AF. We compared healthcare use and clinical outcomes between patients according to their AF subtypes. Methods and Results Consecutive patients undergoing AF ablation were prospectively identified from a population-based registry in Ontario, Canada. Via linkage with administrative databases, we performed a retrospective analysis comparing the following outcomes between patients with persistent and paroxysmal AF: healthcare use (defined as AF-related hospitalizations/emergency room visits), periprocedural complications, and mortality. Multivariable Poisson modeling was performed to compare the rates of AF-related and all-cause hospitalizations/emergency room visits in the year before versus after ablation. Between April 2012 and March 2016, there were 3768 consecutive patients who underwent first-time AF ablation, of whom 1040 (27.6%) had persistent AF. The mean follow-up was 1329 days. Patients with persistent AF had higher risk of AF-related hospitalization/emergency room visits (hazard ratio [HR], 1.21; 95% CI, 1.09-1.34), mortality (HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.15-2.63), and periprocedural complications (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.02-1.75) than those with paroxysmal AF. In the overall cohort, there was a 48% reduction in the rate of AF-related hospitalization/emergency room visits in the year after versus before ablation (rate ratio [RR], 0.52; 95% CI, 0.48-0.56). This reduction was observed for patients with paroxysmal (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.41-0.50) and persistent (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63-0.87) AF. Conclusions Although patients with persistent AF had higher risk of adverse outcomes than those with paroxysmal AF, ablation was associated with a favorable reduction in downstream AF-related healthcare use, irrespective of AF type.

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.

Significance of serum fibroblast growth factor-23 and miR-208b in pathogenesis of atrial fibrillation and their relationship with prognosis

BACKGROUND

The incidence and prevalence of atrial fibrillation are increasing each year, and this condition is one of the most common clinical arrhythmias.

AIM

To investigate the levels and significance of serum fibroblast growth factor 23 (FGF-23) and miR-208b in patients with atrial fibrillation and their relationship with prognosis.

METHODS

From May 2018 to October 2019, 240 patients with atrial fibrillation were selected as an observation group, including 134 with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and 106 with persistent atrial fibrillation; 150 patients with healthy sinus rhythm were selected as a control group. The serum levels of FGF-23 and miR-208b in the two groups were measured. In the observation group, cardiac parameters were determined by echocardiography.

RESULTS

The serum levels of FGF-23 and miR-208b in the observation group were 210.20 ± 89.60 ng/mL and 5.30 ± 1.22 ng/mL, which were significantly higher than the corresponding values in the control group (P < 0.05). In the observation group, the serum levels of FGF-23 and miR-208b in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation were 234.22 ± 70.05 ng/mL and 5.83 ± 1.00 ng/mL, which were significantly higher than the corresponding values in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (P < 0.05). The left atrial dimension (LAD) of patients with persistent atrial fibrillation was 38.81 ± 5.11 mm, which was significantly higher than that of patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (P > 0.05). The serum levels of FGF-23 and miR-208b were positively correlated with the LAD (r = 0.411 and 0.382, P < 0.05). In the observation group, the serum levels of FGF-23 and miR-208b in patients with a major cardiovascular event (MACE) were 243.30 ± 72.29 ng/mL and 6.12 ± 1.12 ng/mL, which were significantly higher than the corresponding values in patients without a MACE (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The serum levels of FGF-23 and miR-208b are increased in patients with atrial fibrillation and are related to the type of disease, cardiac parameters, and prognosis.