Why the study?
Does radiofrequency catheter ablation improve clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness compared to rate and rhythm control with antiarrhythmic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Does radiofrequency catheter ablation improve clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness compared to rate and rhythm control with antiarrhythmic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation?
This review summarizes the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation compared to medical therapy.
May inform shared decision-making for AF ablation; leaves open need for updated cost-effectiveness data versus modern therapies.
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a frequently encountered rhythm disorder, characterized by high recurrence rate, frequent hospitalizations, reduced quality-of-life and increased the risk of mortality, heart failure and stroke. Along with these clinical complications this type of arrhythmia is the major driver of health-related expenditures. Radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFA) of atrial fibrillation has been shown to improve freedom from arrhythmia survival, reduce re-hospitalization rate and provide better quality-of-life as compared with rate control and rhythm control with antiarrhythmic therapy. Efficacy of AF ablation in terms of outcomes and costs has an evolving importance. In this review, we aimed to highlight current knowledge on AF ablation clinical outcomes based on results of randomized clinical trials and community-based studies, and overview how this improvement in clinical end-points affects costs for arrhythmia care and cost-effectiveness of AF ablation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kudaiberdieva et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: