Why the study?
The cost-effectiveness of adopting 3D nonfluoroscopic mapping systems for catheter ablation of SVT and AF had not been estimated.
Does the use of 3D Nonfluoroscopic Mapping Systems improve cost-effectiveness in patients undergoing catheter ablation for SVT and AF?
Population
Patients undergoing SVT or AF catheter ablation from 2007 to 2016
Comparison
NMS adoption vs fluoroscopy alone (SVT) or updated vs earlier NMS versions (AF)
Design
Single-center cost-effectiveness analysis
Authors
Loading...
NMS use may be cost-effective for AF but not SVT ablation; leaves open need for prospective trials before routine adoption.
Does the use of 3D Nonfluoroscopic Mapping Systems improve cost-effectiveness in patients undergoing catheter ablation for SVT and AF?
The systematic use of 3D nonfluoroscopic mapping systems appears cost-effective for atrial fibrillation ablation due to significant radiation reduction, but not for supraventricular tachycardia ablation.
Marini et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: