Why the study?
To compare real-world clinical and economic outcomes among AF patients undergoing cardiac ablation with the contact force-sensing porous tip STSF catheter versus the AFA-CB catheter.
Does catheter ablation with the STSF catheter reduce costs and readmissions compared to the AFA-CB catheter in adults with atrial fibrillation?
Does catheter ablation with the STSF catheter reduce costs and readmissions compared to the AFA-CB catheter in adults with atrial fibrillation?
The use of the STSF catheter for AF ablation may offer economic and clinical advantages, including lower costs and reduced cardiovascular readmissions, compared to the AFA-CB catheter.
STSF ablation was associated with lower costs and CV readmissions than AFA-CB; leaves open whether differences warrant device preference pending prospective trials.
OBJECTIVE: To compare real-world clinical and economic outcomes among atrial fibrillation (AF) patients undergoing cardiac ablation with the contact force-sensing porous tip THERMOCOOL SMARTTOUCH SF (STSF) catheter versus the Arctic Front Advance Cryoballoon (AFA-CB) catheter. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational cohort study. SETTING: Premier Healthcare Database (PHD), between 1 September 2016 and 30 June 2018. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with AF (≥18 years) were included if they had an index ablation procedure performed using the STSF catheter or AFA-CB catheter at a US hospital that consistently provided inpatient and outpatient data to PHD in the 12-month preindex period. Using 1:1 propensity score matching, patient groups were matched on study covariates. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost, length of stay (LOS), readmissions, direct current cardioversion (DCCV) and reablation outcomes were compared between matched cohorts of STSF and AFA-CB patients. RESULTS: A total of 3015 patients with AF met the study criteria, of which 1720 had ablation using the STSF catheter and 1295 had ablation using the AFA-CB catheter. In the propensity-matched sample, patients receiving ablation with the STSF catheter had ~17% lower total costs (US$23 096 vs US$27 682, p≤0.0001) and ~27% lower supply costs (US$10 208 vs US$13 816, p≤0.0001) versus patients receiving ablation with the AFA-CB catheter. A significantly lower likelihood of 4-month to 6-month cardiovascular-related readmission (OR 0.460, 95% CI 0.220 to 0.959) was associated with the STSF catheter versus the AFA-CB catheter. No significant differences in LOS, room and board cost, 4-month to 6-month all-cause and AF-related readmissions, DCCV and reablation were observed among technologies. Sensitivity analysis restricting patient sample by provider ablation volume demonstrated similar results. CONCLUSION: Lower index ablation total and supply costs were observed among patients with AF undergoing cardiac catheter ablation using the STSF catheter versus the AFA-CB catheter.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Costea et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: