Why the study?
Following the PRECEPT trial leading to catheter approval for persistent AF in the United States, an economic simulation model was needed to monetize the impact of radiofrequency catheter ablation compared with medical therapy.
Does radiofrequency catheter ablation provide a favorable long-term economic impact compared to medical therapy in adult patients with persistent atrial fibrillation?
Does radiofrequency catheter ablation provide a favorable long-term economic impact compared to medical therapy in adult patients with persistent atrial fibrillation?
Radiofrequency catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation requires higher initial costs but provides significant annual cost offsets, reaching a break-even point for U.S. payers within 4.2 to 5.9 years.
Supports contact-force porous-tip ablation for symptomatic persistent AF; leaves open need for randomized trials vs medical therapy.
Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most prevalent cardiac arrhythmia, and it increases the risk of stroke, heart failure, and other cardiac complications. Catheter ablation is well-established as a treatment for paroxysmal AF, and the recent PRECEPT (Prospective Review of the Safety and Effectiveness of the THERMOCOOL SMARTTOUCH SF Catheter Evaluated for Treating Symptomatic Persistent AF) clinical trial resulted in the catheter gaining approval for the treatment of persistent AF in the United States. Objectives: To construct an economic simulation model, based on the results of the PRECEPT trial, to monetize the impact of radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) compared with medical therapy (MT). Methods: Cost-offset and break-even analyses were performed to assess the economic impact of RFCA vs MT for adult persistent AF patients. Three perspectives were considered: commercial payers, Medicare, and self-insured employers. A cohort-level decision tree model was developed and validated in TreeAge Pro 2019. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the robustness of findings. Results: For all 3 types of payer, RFCA had a higher initial cost compared with MT. However, reductions in health care utilization after ablation, driven by decreased cardiovascular hospitalizations, led to an annual cost offset of between $5037 and $8402 after the first year. Projecting this forward resulted in an estimated cost break-even after 5.9, 4.2, and 5.1 years for commercial payers, Medicare, and self-insured employers, respectively. Conclusion: In addition to providing clinical benefits, RFCA may be a valuable economic investment for U.S. payers, substantially reducing utilization after the first year.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Osorio et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: