Why the study?
Current guidelines recommend antiarrhythmic drugs or catheter ablation as rhythm-control strategies for AF, but a comprehensive assessment of economic evaluations across country income levels was needed.
Is catheter ablation cost-effective compared to antiarrhythmic drugs for rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Is catheter ablation cost-effective compared to antiarrhythmic drugs for rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Catheter ablation is a cost-effective rhythm-control treatment for atrial fibrillation compared with antiarrhythmic drugs, especially in high-income countries.
CA cost-effective vs AADs in high-income countries; extends prior reviews but leaves open evidence gaps for middle- and low-income settings.
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most prevalent cardiac arrhythmia and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Current international guidelines recommend antiarrhythmic drugs or catheter ablation (CA) as rhythm-control strategies for AF. This study aimed to comprehensively assess economic evaluations (EEs) of the treatment of AF by country income level. Seven electronic databases were systematically searched for EE literature until March 30, 2024, with no constraints on time or language. Two independent reviewers selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the quality of the data. Full EEs comparing CA with antiarrhythmic drugs for rhythm-control treatment were included; surgical or rate-control treatments were excluded. The quality of the included articles was assessed using the ECOBIAS checklist. Costs were converted to purchasing power parity US dollars for 2023. A random-effects meta-analysis was applied to pool incremental net benefit (INB) based on a heterogeneity test and its degree ( I 2 > 25% or Cochran’s Q test < 0.1). We also explored heterogeneity and potential publication bias and conducted sensitivity and subgroup analyses. In total, 27 studies across nine countries were eligible, predominantly from high-income countries ( n = 25), with a smaller subset from upper-middle-income countries ( n = 2). Because of the heterogeneity among the studies, a random-effects model was selected over a fixed-effects model to pool INBs. Most studies ( n = 21) favored CA as the cost-effective intervention, yielding an INB of $US23,796 (95% confidence interval [CI] 15,341–32,251) in high-income countries. However, heterogeneity was substantial ( I 2 = 99.67%). In upper-middle-income countries, the estimated INB was $US18,330 (95% CI − 11,900–48,526). The publication bias results showed no evidence of asymmetrical funnel plots. In this meta-analysis, CA emerged as a cost-effective rhythm-control treatment for AF when compared with antiarrhythmic drugs, particularly in high-income countries. However, economic evidence for upper-middle-income countries is lacking, and no primary evaluations were found for low-middle-income and low-income countries. Further EEs are necessary to expand the understanding of AF treatment globally.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wattanasukchai et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: