Key result
AF catheter ablation proves cost-effective vs drug therapy at ~$58,000 per QALY gained.
Why the study?
Cost-effectiveness was a prespecified secondary end point in the CABANA trial to evaluate catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic drug therapy.
Does catheter ablation improve cost-effectiveness compared to antiarrhythmic drug therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation?
RCT (n=2,204)
Open-label
Randomized
Yes
Does catheter ablation improve cost-effectiveness compared to antiarrhythmic drug therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Effect estimate: $57,893 per QALY gained
Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation is economically attractive compared to antiarrhythmic drug therapy based on projected quality-adjusted life-years, particularly in patients with concomitant heart failure.
Captured external expert commentary on this paper, strongest first. Original sources are linked where available.
“This meets the threshold for good-value care in the United States.”
“I agree it's not the formal way to evaluate a trial, but it's more a real-world analysis.”
“Catheter ablation of AFib has been shown to produce a sustained reduction in AFib recurrences and a durable improvement in QOL relative to standard drug therapy.”
Supports US adoption of ablation for atrial fibrillation at accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds; extends CABANA quality-of-life gains with lifetime economic projections.
Background: In the CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation), catheter ablation did not significantly reduce the primary end point of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest compared with drug therapy by intention-to-treat, but did improve the quality of life and freedom from atrial fibrillation recurrence. In the heart failure subgroup, ablation improved both survival and quality of life. Cost-effectiveness was a prespecified CABANA secondary end point. Methods: Medical resource use data were collected for all CABANA patients (N=2204). Costs for hospital-based care were assigned using prospectively collected bills from US patients (n=1171); physician and medication costs were assigned using the Medicare Fee Schedule and National Average Drug Acquisition Costs, respectively. Extrapolated life expectancies were estimated using age-based survival models. Quality-of-life adjustments were based on EQ-5D–based utilities measured during the trial. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, comparing ablation with drug therapy on the basis of intention-to-treat, and assessed from the US health care sector perspective. Results: Costs in the first 3 months averaged $20 794±SD 1069 higher with ablation compared with drug therapy. The cumulative within-trial 5-year cost difference was $19 245 (95% CI, $11 360–$27 170) and the lifetime mean cost difference was $15 516 (95% CI, –$2963 to $35,512) higher with ablation than with drug therapy. The drug therapy arm accrued an average of 12.5 life-years (LYs) and 10.7 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). For the ablation arm, the corresponding estimates were 12.6 LYs and 11.0 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $57 893 per QALY gained, with 75% of bootstrap replications yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio < $100 000 per QALY gained. With no quality-of-life/utility adjustments, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $183 318 per LY gained. Conclusions: Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation was economically attractive compared with drug therapy in the CABANA Trial overall at present benchmarks for health care value in the United States on the basis of projected incremental QALYs but not LYs alone.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chew et al. (2022) conducted an RCT in Atrial fibrillation (n=2,204). Catheter ablation vs. Antiarrhythmic drug therapy was evaluated on Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) ($57,893 per QALY gained). Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation was economically attractive compared with drug therapy, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $57,893 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: