The abstract does not report quantitative results comparing health care resource use and costs 2 years before and after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation.
Observational
Does catheter ablation reduce health care resource use and costs in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Background: There is a paucity of Canadian studies using patient-level data to analyze the costs of catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF).We sought to identify the health care resource use, costs, and cost predictors of CA.Methods: A cost analysis was performed in a population of AF patients treated with CA in Central Zone Nova Scotia from 2010 to 2018.Costs were compared 2 years before ablation (pre-CA) with costs 2 years RSUM Contexte : Il existe peu d' etudes canadiennes utilisant des donn ees sur les patients pour analyser les cots de l'ablation par cath eter (AC) de la fibrillation auriculaire (FA).Notre etude visait d eterminer l'utilisation des ressources de sant e, les cots et les facteurs pr edictifs du cot de l'AC.M ethodologie : Une analyse des cots a et e r ealis ee au sein d'une population de patients atteints de FA trait es par AC dans la r egion Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common cardiac arrhythmia treated with the intent to prevent morbidity and improve quality of life. 1 Observational studies have shown that patients with AF are high users of health care resources as a result of increased morbidity and AF progression. 233]4 There is also mounting evidence that catheter ablation (CA) leads to reductions in health care resource use (HCRU) thereafter. 56]78 CA is often a part of the standard of care for the treatment of AF because of its improved efficacy in providing symptom relief and reducing arrhythmia burden compared with antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs). 9CA is a costly procedure, but can reduce progression and complications of AF, and might thus provide cost-effectiveness benefits. 10Berman et al. estimated a 21%-26% reduction in cardiovascular-related health care encounters in AF patients treated with CA. 11 Furthermore, their model identified that CA could provide greater cost savings and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for patients in early AF.Previous Canadian studies on the cost-effectiveness of CA in patients with AF have shown that CA is cost-effective in patients with heart failure (HF) 12 and patients at low risk of stroke 13 compared with AADs.Several modelling studies in other jurisdictions have also been performed to assess the costeffectiveness of CA compared with AADs. 14155]1617181920 Although the willingness-to-pay threshold varies among studies, they show greater costs associated with CA and QALY improvements ranging from 1.1 to 0.1 QALYs compared with AADs.These studies used economic modelling methods on the basis of published observational studies to arrive at these conclusions.A more recent analysis of the Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation (CABANA) trial population showed that CA is cost-effective on the basis of the incremental benefit in QALYs but not in life years provided compared with AADs. 21Although the current evidence points to CA as a cost-effective treatment modality, there is a paucity of Canadian studies using patient-level data to ascertain the value of CA compared with AADs.The goal of this study was to build on the current evidence and further assess the HCRU and costs associated with CA.This was assessed by comparing the costs associated with AF management 2 years before CA (pre-CA) with 2 years after CA (post-CA).Additionally, the costs of patients treated with contact force sensing (CFS) technology were compared with those treated with non-CFS CA.
Bolous et al. (Mon,) conducted a observational in Atrial Fibrillation. Catheter ablation vs. Pre-ablation period (2 years prior) was evaluated on Health care resource use and costs. The abstract does not report quantitative results comparing health care resource use and costs 2 years before and after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation.