Key result
Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with HFrEF yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $38,496 (95% CI, $5,583-$117,510) per QALY gained compared with medical management.
Why the study?
Randomized clinical trials showed catheter ablation for AF in HFrEF may improve survival and cardiovascular outcomes, but its economic value remained to be evaluated.
Is catheter ablation cost-effective compared to medical management in patients with symptomatic HFrEF and atrial fibrillation?
Is catheter ablation cost-effective compared to medical management in patients with symptomatic HFrEF and atrial fibrillation?
Effect estimate: $38 496 per QALY gained (95% CI $5583-$117 510)
Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with HFrEF is economically favorable at current US willingness-to-pay thresholds compared with medical management.
Supports ablation as potentially cost-effective in HFrEF; extends economic data but leaves open need for prospective confirmation.
BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction may improve survival and other cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: We constructed a decision-analytic Markov model to estimate the costs and benefits of catheter ablation and medical management in patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%) and atrial fibrillation over a lifetime horizon. Evidence from the published literature informed the model inputs, including clinical effectiveness data from meta-analyses. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. A 3% discount rate was applied to both future costs and benefits. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio assessed from the US health care sector perspective. RESULTS: Catheter ablation was associated with 6.47 (95% CI, 5.89-6.93) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and a total cost of $105 657 (95% CI, $55 311-$191 934; 2018 US dollars), compared with 5.30 (95% CI, 5.20-5.39) QALYs and $63 040 (95% CI, $37 624-$102 260) for medical management. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for catheter ablation compared with medical management was $38 496 (95% CI, $5583-$117 510) per QALY gained. Model inputs with the greatest variation on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates were the cost of ablation and the effect of catheter ablation on mortality reduction. When assuming a more conservative estimate of the treatment effect of catheter ablation on mortality (hazard ratio of 0.86), the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $74 403 per QALY gained. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained, atrial fibrillation ablation was found to be economically favorable compared with medical management in 95% of simulations. CONCLUSIONS: Catheter ablation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients and atrial fibrillation may be considered economically attractive at current benchmarks for societal willingness-to-pay in the United States.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chew et al. (2020) studied Symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation. Catheter ablation vs. Medical management was evaluated on Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ($38 496 per QALY gained, 95% CI $5583-$117 510). Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with HFrEF yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $38,496 (95% CI, $5,583-$117,510) per QALY gained compared with medical management.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: