A danish healthcare-focused economic evaluation of first-line cryoballoon ablation versus antiarrhythmic drug therapy for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

INTRODUCTION: Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that first-line cryoballoon pulmonary vein isolation decreases atrial tachycardia in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) compared with antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs). The aim of this study was to develop a cost-effectiveness model (CEM) for first-line cryoablation compared with first-line AADs for the treatment of PAF. The model used a Danish healthcare perspective. METHODS: Individual patient-level data from the Cryo-FIRST, STOP AF and EARLY-AF RCTs were used to parameterise the CEM. The model structure consisted of a hybrid decision tree (one-year time horizon) and a Markov model (40-year time horizon, with a three-month cycle length). Health-related quality of life was expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per year. Model outcomes were produced using probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: First-line cryoablation is dominant, meaning it results in lower costs (-€2,663) and more QALYs (0.18) when compared to first-line AADs. First-line cryoablation also has a 99.96% probability of being cost-effective, at a cost-effectiveness threshold of €23,200 per QALY gained. Regardless of initial treatment, patients were expected to receive ∼ 1.2 ablation procedures over a lifetime horizon. CONCLUSION: First-line cryoablation is both more effective and less costly (i.e. dominant), when compared with AADs for patients with symptomatic PAF in a Danish healthcare system.

Cost-effectiveness of an antibacterial envelope for infection prevention in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy reoperations in Denmark.

AIMS: Use of an absorbable antibacterial envelope during implantation prevents cardiac implantable electronic device infections in patients with a moderate-to-high infection risk. Previous studies demonstrated that an envelope is cost-effective in high-risk patients within German, Italian, and English healthcare systems, but these analyses were based on limited data and may not be generalizable to other healthcare settings. METHODS AND RESULTS: A previously published decision-tree-based cost-effectiveness model was used to compare the costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) associated with adjunctive use of an antibacterial envelope for infection prevention compared to standard-of-care intravenous antibiotics. The model was adapted using data from a Danish observational two-centre cohort study that investigated infection-risk patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reoperations with and without an antibacterial envelope (n = 1943). We assumed a cost-effectiveness threshold of €34 125/QALY gained, based on the upper threshold used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (£30 000). An antibacterial envelope was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €12 022 per QALY in patients undergoing CRT reoperations, thus indicating that the envelope is cost-effective when compared with standard of care. A separate analysis stratified by device type showed ICERS of €6227 (CRT defibrillator) and €29 177 (CRT pacemaker) per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness ratios were favourable for patients undergoing CRT reoperations in the Danish healthcare system, and thus are in line with previous studies. Results from this study can contribute to making the technology available to Danish patients and align preventive efforts in the pacemaker and ICD area.