RESUMO
Background: Catheter ablation is an effective treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF) but incurs significant financial costs to payers. Reducing variability may improve cost effectiveness. Objectives: We aimed to measure (1) the components of direct and indirect costs for routine AF ablation procedures, (2) the variability of those costs, and (3) the main factors driving ablation cost variability. Methods: Using data from the University of Utah Health Value Driven Outcomes system, we were able to measure direct, inflation-adjusted costs of uncomplicated, routine AF ablation to the healthcare system. Direct costs were considered costs incurred by pharmacy, disposable supplies, patient labs, implants, and other services categories (primarily anesthesia support) and indirect costs were considered within imaging, facility, and electrophysiology lab management categories. Results: A total of 910 patients with 1060 outpatient ablation encounters were included from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2020. Disposable supplies accounted for the largest component of cost with 44.8 ± 9.7%, followed by other services (primarily anesthesia support) with 30.4 ± 7.7% and facility costs with 16.1 ± 5.6%; pharmacy, imaging, and implant costs each contributed <5%. Direct costs were larger than indirect costs (82.4 ± 5.6% vs 17.6 ± 5.6%). Multivariable regression showed that procedure operator was the primary factor associated with AF ablation overall cost (up to 12% differences depending on operator). Conclusions: Direct costs and other services (primarily anesthesia) drive the majority costs associated with AF ablations. There is significant variability in costs for these routine, uncomplicated AF ablation procedures. The procedure operator, and not patient characteristic, is the main driver for cost variability.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: We aimed to measure patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and costs associated with same-day discharge (SDD) for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation and vascular closure device implantation in clinical practice. METHODS: PROs were prospectively measured in 50 AF ablation patients, comparing complete vascular device closure (n = 25) versus manual compression hemostasis (n = 25). Health-system costs for SDD patients receiving vascular device closure were compared to matched controls with one-night stays who did not receive any closure device. RESULTS: Prospectively enrolled patients receiving vascular device closure for AF ablation had a mean age of 65 years, 17% were female, with a mean CHA2 DS2 -VASc score of 3. The mean number of venous sheaths was higher among patients receiving vascular device closure (3.8 vs. 3.1, p < 0.001), and there was one case of rebleeding in a patient receiving a vascular closure device (no other complications). Same-day discharge rates (76% vs. 8.3%, p < 0.001), patient satisfaction with bedrest time (8.5 vs. 6, p = 0.004) and with pain (8 vs. 5.1, p = 0.009) were significantly better among patients receiving vascular closure. In matched analyses of health-system costs, patients with vascular closure had mean age 66, 32% were female, and the mean CHA2 DS2 -VASc score was 2 (p = NS vs. controls). SDD with vascular closure was associated with the significantly lower facility, pharmacy, and disposable costs, but higher implant costs. Overall costs for ablation were not significantly different (mean difference 1.10%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -3.03 to 5.42). CONCLUSIONS: Vascular closure for AF ablation improves patient experience in routine care. The use of vascular closure and SDD after AF ablation reduces several components of healthcare system costs, without an overall increase.