Comprehensive analysis of same day discharge after atrial fibrillation ablation: Clinical, cost, and patient reported outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Same day discharge (SDD) following atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation procedure has emerged as routine practice, and primarily driven by operator discretion. However, the impacts of SDD on clinical outcomes, healthcare system costs, and patient reported outcomes (PROs) have not been systematically studied. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients undergoing routine AF ablation procedures with SDD versus overnight observation (NSDD). After propensity adjustment we compared postprocedure adverse events (AEs), healthcare system costs, and changes in PROs. RESULTS: We identified 310 cases, with 159 undergoing SDD and 151 staying at least one midnight in the hospital (NSDD). Compared with NSDD, SDD patients were similar age (mean 64 vs. 66, p = 0.3), sex (26% female vs. 27%, p = 0.8), and with lower mean CHADS2-VA2Sc scores (2.0 vs. 2.7; p < 0.011). The primary outcome of AEs was noninferior in SDD versus NSDD patients (odds ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.21-0.99; noninferiority margin of 10%). There were also no differences in overall cost to the healthcare system between SDD and NSDD (p = 0.11). PROs numerically favored SDD (p = NS for all scores). CONCLUSIONS: Physician selection for SDD appears at least as safe as NSDD with respect to clinical outcomes and SDD is not significantly less costly to the health system. There is a trend towards more favorable, general PROs among SDD patients. Routine SDD should be strongly considered for patients undergoing routine AF ablation procedures.

Characteristics of a transgender and gender-diverse patient population in Utah: Use of electronic health records to advance clinical and health equity research.

Transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) people, individuals whose gender identity differs from their sex assigned at birth, face unique challenges in accessing gender-affirming care and often experience disparities in a variety of health outcomes. Clinical research on TGD health is limited by a lack of standardization on how to best identify these individuals. The objective of this retrospective cohort analysis was to accurately identify and describe TGD adults and their use of gender-affirming care from 2003-2023 in a healthcare system in Utah, United States. International Classification of Disease (ICD)-9 and 10 codes and surgical procedure codes, along with sexual orientation and gender identity data were used to develop a dataset of 4,587 TGD adults. During this time frame, 2,985 adults received gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) and/or gender-affirming surgery (GAS) within one healthcare system. There was no significant difference in race or ethnicity between TGD adults who received GAHT and/or GAS compared to TGD adults who did not receive such care. TGD adults who received GAHT and/or GAS were more likely to have commercial insurance coverage, and adults from rural communities were underrepresented. Patients seeking estradiol-based GAHT tended to be older than those seeking testosterone-based GAHT. The first GAS occurred in 2013, and uptake of GAS have doubled since 2018. This study provides a methodology to identify and examine TGD patients in other health systems and offers insights into emerging trends and access to gender-affirming care.

Major drivers of healthcare system costs and cost variability for routine atrial fibrillation ablation.

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.

Patient-reported outcomes and costs associated with vascular closure and same-day discharge following atrial fibrillation ablation.

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.