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

The Cost-Effectiveness of First-Line Cryoablation vs First-Line Antiarrhythmic Drugs in Canadian Patients With Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

The EARLY-AF (NCT02825979), STOP AF First (NCT03118518), and Cryo-FIRST (NCT01803438) randomised controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated that cryoballoon pulmonary vein isolation reduces atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence compared with antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF). The present study developed a cost-effectiveness model (CEM) of first-line cryoablation compared with first-line AADs for PAF, from the Canadian health care payer's perspective.

METHODS

Data from the 3 RCTs were analysed to estimate key CEM parameters. The model structure used a decision tree for the first 12 months and a Markov model with a 3-month cycle length for the remaining lifetime time horizon. Costs were set at 2023 Canadian dollars, health benefits were expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and both were discounted 3% annually. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) considered parameter uncertainty.

RESULTS

The statistical analysis estimated that first-line cryoablation generates a 47% reduction (P < 0.001) in the rate of AF recurrence, a 73% reduction in the rate of subsequent ablation (P < 0.001), and a 4.3% (P = 0.025) increase in health-related quality of life, compared with first-line AADs. The PSA indicates that an individual treated with first-line cryoablation accrues less costs (-$3,862) and more QALYs (0.19) compared with first-line AADs. Cryoablation is cost-saving in 98.4% of PSA iterations and has a 99.9% probability of being cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained. Cost-effectiveness results were robust to changes in key model parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

First-line cryoballoon ablation is cost-effective when compared with AADs for patients with symptomatic PAF.

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.

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.

Excess Bed Days and Hospitalization Costs Associated With 30-Day Complications Following Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

The incidence and type of complications following catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation have been extensively examined, but the impact associated with these complications on the length of stay and hospitalization costs is unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This cohort study included 20 117 adult patients (mean age 62.6±11.4 years, 30.3% women, median length of stay 1 day [interquartile range 1-2 days]) undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation in financial years 2011 to 2017 in Australia with available cost data from the National Hospital Cost Data Collection, which determines government reimbursement of health services provided. The primary outcome was the costs associated with complications occurring up to 30 days postdischarge adjusted for inflation to 2021 Australian dollars. We used generalized linear models to estimate the increase in length of stay and cost associated with complications, adjusting for patient characteristics. Within 30 days of hospital discharge, 1151 (5.72%) patients experienced a complication with bleeding (3.35%) and pericardial effusion (0.75%) being the most common. On average, the occurrence of a complication was associated with an adjusted 3.3 (95% CI, 3.1-3.6) excess bed days of hospital care (totaling 3851 days), and a $7812 (95% CI, $6754-$8870) increase in hospitalization cost (totaling $9.0 million). Most of the total excess cost was attributable to bleeding ($3.8 million, 41.9% of total excess cost) and pericardial effusion ($1.6 million, 18.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Complications following atrial fibrillation ablation were associated with significant increase in length of stay and hospitalization costs, most of which were attributable to bleeding and pericardial effusion. Strategies to improve procedural safety and reduce health care costs should focus on these complications.

Cost Effectiveness of Strategies to Manage Atrial Fibrillation in Middle- and High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) remains the most common form of cardiac arrhythmia. Management of AF aims to reduce the risk of stroke, heart failure and premature mortality via rate or rhythm control. This study aimed to review the literature on the cost effectiveness of treatment strategies to manage AF among adults living in low-, middle- and high-income countries.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (OvidSp), Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EconLit and Google Scholar for relevant studies between September 2022 and November 2022. The search strategy involved medical subject headings or related text words. Data management and selection was performed using EndNote library. The titles and abstracts were screened followed by eligibility assessment of full texts. Selection, assessment of the risk of bias within the studies, and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. The cost-effectiveness results were synthesised narratively. The analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel 365. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for each study was adjusted to 2021 USD values.

RESULTS

Fifty studies were included in the analysis after selection and risk of bias assessment. In high-income countries, apixaban was predominantly cost effective for stroke prevention in patients at low and moderate risk of stroke, while left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) was cost effective in patients at high risk of stroke. Propranolol was the cost-effective choice for rate control, while catheter ablation and the convergent procedure were cost-effective strategies in patients with paroxysmal and persistent AF, respectively. Among the anti-arrhythmic drugs, sotalol was the cost-effective strategy for rhythm control. In middle-income countries, apixaban was the cost-effective choice for stroke prevention in patients at low and moderate risk of stroke while high-dose edoxaban was cost effective in patients at high risk of stroke. Radiofrequency catheter ablation was the cost-effective option in rhythm control. No data were available for low-income countries.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review has shown that there are several cost-effective strategies to manage AF in different resource settings. However, the decision to use any strategy should be guided by objective clinical and economic evidence supported by sound clinical judgement.

REGISTRATION

CRD42022360590.

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.

Improved hospital discharge and cost savings with esophageal cooling during left atrial ablation

BACKGROUND

Left atrial ablation to obtain pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) is a technologically intensive procedure utilizing innovative and continually improving technology. Changes in the technology utilized for PVI can in turn lead to changes in procedure costs. Because of the proximity of the esophagus to the posterior wall of the left atrium, various technologies have been utilized to protect against thermal injury during ablation. The impact on hospital costs during PVI ablation from utilization of different technologies for esophageal protection during ablation has not previously been evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the costs of active esophageal cooling to luminal esophageal temperature (LET) monitoring during left atrial ablation.

METHODS

We performed a time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) analysis to determine costs for PVI procedures. Published data and literature review were utilized to determine differences in procedure time and same-day discharge rates using different esophageal protection technologies and to determine the cost impacts of same-day discharge versus overnight hospitalization after PVI procedures. The total costs were then compared between cases using active esophageal cooling to those using LET monitoring.

RESULTS

The effect of implementing active esophageal cooling was associated with up to a 24.7% reduction in mean total procedure time, and an 18% increase in same-day discharge rate. TDABC analysis identified a $681 reduction in procedure costs associated with the use of active esophageal cooling after including the cost of the esophageal cooling device. Factoring in the 18% increase in same-day discharge resulted in an increased cost savings of $2,135 per procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of active esophageal cooling is associated with significant cost-savings when compared to traditional LET monitoring, even after accounting for the additional cost of the cooling device. These savings originate from a per-patient procedural time savings and a per-population improvement in same-day discharge rate.

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.

Catheter ablation versus medical therapy for atrial fibrillation: Penny-wise Pound-foolish

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation has emerged as a mainstay for the management of atrial fibrillation. It has been shown to be clinically effective and cost-effective in multiple trials.