Why the study?
Is the Cox maze procedure cost-effective compared to catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Population
Patients with atrial fibrillation
Comparison
Cox maze procedure vs Catheter ablation
Design
Other
Follow-up
1 year and lifetime (projected)
Key result
The Cox maze procedure yielded lower 1-year mortality (3.5% vs 8.5%) and higher QALYs than catheter ablation, with a lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $12,794 per QALY gained.
Authors
Loading...
Cox maze may be cost-effective versus catheter ablation in AF at common thresholds; leaves open need for randomized confirmation of model inputs.
Is the Cox maze procedure cost-effective compared to catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation?
The Cox maze procedure appears to be a highly cost-effective alternative to catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation, increasing quality-adjusted survival at an acceptable societal cost.
Yang et al. (2018) studied atrial fibrillation. Cox maze procedure vs. catheter ablation was evaluated on lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ($/QALY). The Cox maze procedure yielded lower 1-year mortality (3.5% vs 8.5%) and higher QALYs than catheter ablation, with a lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $12,794 per QALY gained.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: