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-Based Price Calculation of Mexiletine for Nondystrophic Myotonia.

OBJECTIVES: Mexiletine is a long-known drug used for the treatment of arrhythmias and repurposed in the 1980s for patients with nondystrophic myotonia (NDM). Recently, the price of mexiletine in Europe increased significantly after registration as an orphan drug for NDM. This led to international discussions on affordability and willingness to reimburse mexiletine in the absence of background information that would justify such a price. Our objective was to calculate a cost-based price for mexiletine for adult patients with NDM based on detailed information on development costs. METHODS: We calculated a fair price based on a cost-based pricing model for commercial mexiletine to treat adults with NDM using a recent European drug-pricing model as a framework to include actual costs incurred. Three scenarios were applied: 1 with minimum estimated costs, 1 with maximum estimated costs, and 1 with costs as if mexiletine was innovative. RESULTS: The calculated fair price of mexiletine per patient per year (PPPY) is €452 for the minimum scenario and €1996 for the maximum scenario. By using hypothetical R&D costs used for innovative drugs, the price would be €6685 PPPY. In Europe, the list price of mexiletine ranges from €30 707-60 730 PPPY, based on 600 mg daily. CONCLUSIONS: The current list price for mexiletine in Europe is manifold higher than any scenario of the cost-based models. Accounting for the reduced costs for clinical development in a repurposing scenario, the cost-based pricing model provides a fair commercial price range, which can be used as benchmark for pricing negotiations and/or reimbursement decisions.

Cost effectiveness of focal impulse and rotor modulation guided ablation added to pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Although ablation with focal impulse and rotor modulation (FIRM), as an adjunct to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), has been shown to decrease atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence, cost-effectiveness has not been assessed. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of FIRM-guided ablation when added to PVI in a mixed AF population. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used a Markov model to estimate the costs, quality-adjusted survival, and cost effectiveness of adding FIRM ablation to PVI. AF recurrence rates were based on 3-year data from the CONFIRM trial. Model inputs for event probabilities and utilities were obtained from literature review. Costs were based on Medicare reimbursement, wholesale acquisition costs, and literature review. Three-year total costs FIRM+PVI versus PVI alone were $27,686 versus $26,924. QALYs were 2.338 versus 2.316, respectively, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $34,452 per QALY gained. Most of the cost (65-81%) was related to the index ablation procedure. Lower AF recurrence generated cost offsets of $4,266, primarily due to a reduced need for medications and repeat ablation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated ICER below $100,000/QALY in 74% of simulations. CONCLUSION: Based on data from the CONFIRM study, the addition of FIRM to PVI does have the potential to be cost-effective due to higher quality-adjusted life years and lower follow-up costs. Value is sensitive to the incremental reduction in AF recurrence, and FIRM may have the greatest economic value in patients with greater AF symptom severity. Results from ongoing randomized trials will provide further clarity.

Ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation using a second-generation cryoballoon catheter or contact-force sensing radiofrequency ablation catheter: A comparison of costs and long-term clinical outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Although noninferiority of cryoballoon ablation (CBA) and radiofrequency catheter ablation for antral pulmonary vein isolation (APVI) has been reported in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF), it is not clear whether contact force sensing (CF-RFA) and CBA with the second-generation catheter have similar procedural costs and long-term outcomes. The objective of this study is to compare the long-term efficacy and cost implications of CBA and CF-RFA in patients with PAF. METHODS AND RESULTS: A first APVI was performed in 146 consecutive patients (age: 63 ± 10 years, men: 95 [65%], left atrial diameter: 42 ± 6 mm) with PAF using CBA (71) or CF-RFA (75). Clinical outcomes and procedural costs were compared. The mean procedure time was significantly shorter with CBA than with CF-RFA (98 ± 39 vs. 158 ± 47 minutes, P < 0.0001). Despite a higher equipment cost in the CBA than the CF-RFA group, the total procedure cost was similar between the two groups (P = 0.26), primarily driven by a shorter procedure duration that resulted in a lower anesthesia cost. At 25 ± 5 months after a single ablation procedure, 51 patients (72%) in the CBA, and 55 patients (73%) in the CF-RFA groups remained free from atrial arrhythmias without antiarrhythmic drug therapy (P = 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: The procedure duration was approximately 60 minutes shorter with CBA than CF-RFA. The procedural costs were similar with both approaches. At 2 years after a single procedure, CBA and CF-RFA have similar single-procedure efficacies of 72-73%.

Cost-effectiveness of digoxin, pacing, and direct current cardioversion for conversion of atrial flutter in neonates.

IntroductionNewborn atrial flutter can be treated by medications, pacing, or direct current cardioversion. The purpose is to compare the cost-effectiveness of digoxin, pacing, and direct current cardioversion for the treatment of atrial flutter in neonates.Materials and methodsA decision tree model was developed comparing the efficacy and cost of digoxin, pacing, and direct current cardioversion based on a meta-analysis of published studies of success rates of cardioversion of neonatal atrial flutter (age<2 months). Patients who failed initial attempt at cardioversion progressed to the next methodology until successful. Data were analysed to assess the cost-effectiveness of these methods with cost estimates obtained from 2015 Medicare reimbursement rates. RESULTS: The cost analysis for cardioversion of atrial flutter found the most efficient method to be direct current cardioversion at a cost of $10 304, pacing was next at $11 086, and the least cost-effective was digoxin at $14 374. The majority of additional cost, regardless of method, was from additional neonatal ICU day either owing to digoxin loading or failure to covert. Direct current cardioversion remains the most cost-effective strategy by sensitivity analyses performed on pacing conversion rate and the cost of the neonatal ICU/day. Direct current cardioversion remains cost-effective until the assumed conversion rate is below 64.6%. CONCLUSION: The most cost-efficient method of cardioverting a neonate with atrial flutter is direct current cardioversion. It has the highest success rates based on the meta-analysis, shorter length of stay in the neonatal ICU owing to its success, and results in cost-savings ranging from $800 to $4000 when compared with alternative approaches.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of left atrial appendage occlusion compared with pharmacological strategies for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is a promising therapy for stroke prophylaxis in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) but its cost-effectiveness remains understudied. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of LAAO for stroke prophylaxis in NVAF. METHODS: A Markov decision analytic model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of LAAO with 7 pharmacological strategies: aspirin alone, clopidogrel plus aspirin, warfarin, dabigatran 110 mg, dabigatran 150 mg, apixaban, and rivaroxaban. Outcome measures included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Base-case data were derived from ACTIVE, RE-LY, ARISTOTLE, ROCKET-AF, PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL trials. One-way sensitivity analysis varied by CHADS2 score, HAS-BLED score, time horizons, and LAAO costs; and probabilistic sensitivity analysis using 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations was conducted to assess parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: LAAO was considered cost-effective compared with aspirin, clopidogrel plus aspirin, and warfarin, with ICER of US$5,115, $2,447, and $6,298 per QALY gained, respectively. LAAO was dominant (i.e. less costly but more effective) compared to other strategies. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated favorable ICERs of LAAO against other strategies in varied CHADS2 score, HAS-BLED score, time horizons (5 to 15 years) and LAAO costs. LAAO was cost-effective in 86.24 % of 10,000 simulations using a threshold of US$50,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Transcatheter LAAO is cost-effective for prevention of stroke in NVAF compared with 7 pharmacological strategies. The transcatheter left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is considered cost-effective against the standard 7 oral pharmacological strategies including acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) alone, clopidogrel plus ASA, warfarin, dabigatran 110 mg, dabigatran 150 mg, apixaban, and rivaroxaban for stroke prophylaxis in non-valvular atrial fibrillation management.

The cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency catheter ablation as first-line treatment for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: results from a MANTRA-PAF substudy.

AIM: The aim of this prospective substudy was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treating paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) with radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFA) compared with antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) as first-line treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: A decision-analytic Markov model, based on MANTRA-PAF (Medical Antiarrhythmic Treatment or Radiofrequency Ablation in Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation) study data, was developed to study long-term effects and costs of RFA compared with AADs as first-line treatment. Positive clinical effects were found in the overall population, a gain of an average 0.06 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to an incremental cost of €3033, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €50 570/QALY. However, the result of the subgroup analyses showed that RFA was less costly and more effective in younger patients. This implied an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €3434/QALY in ≤50-year-old patients respectively €108 937/QALY in >50-year-old patients. CONCLUSION: Radiofrequency catheter ablation as first-line treatment is a cost-effective strategy for younger patients with paroxysmal AF. However, the cost-effectiveness of using RFA as first-line therapy in older patients is uncertain, and in most of these AADs should be attempted before RFA (MANTRA-PAF ClinicalTrials.gov number; NCT00133211).

Cost-effectiveness of cryoballoon ablation for the management of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: Cryoballoon ablation is an established treatment option for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cryoablation, compared with second-line anti-arrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF), from a UK payer perspective. METHODS AND RESULTS: We developed a state-transition (Markov) model to calculate the total costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with cryoablation and AAD therapy in patients with PAF. A 5-year horizon was used for the base-case. Data from a recent study of cryoballoon ablation in patients with PAF were used to model short-term health outcomes and costs, together with longer term external evidence to populate subsequent time periods. Total discounted costs were £21 162 and £17 627 for the cryoballoon ablation and AAD arms, respectively. Total QALYs of 3.565 and 3.404 therefore led to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £21 957 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis suggested that the key drivers of the results were the model time horizon, the costs of follow-up care in patients with recurrent AF, and the costs of the ablation procedure. CONCLUSION: Cryoballoon ablation provides increased quality-adjusted life expectancy compared with AAD at reasonable additional cost, representing good value for money in patients with PAF.

Estimation of potential cost savings associated with reduced rates of cardiovascular hospitalization among atrial fibrillation/flutter patients treated with dronedarone in the ATHENA trial.

The aim of this study was to estimate, from a US payer perspective, potential cost savings resulting from the reduction in cardiovascular (CV) hospitalizations obtained with dronedarone in the ATHENA (A Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Parallel Arm Trial to Assess the Efficacy of Dronedarone 400 mg bid for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Hospitalization or Death from any Cause in PatiENts with Atrial Fibrillation/Atrial Flutter) trial. ATHENA randomized atrial fibrillation/flutter patients to dronedarone (n=2301) or placebo (n=2327) plus standard care. Dronedarone significantly reduced first CV hospitalization/all-cause mortality over 12-30 months of follow-up. CV hospitalization costs (2008 values) from a US cohort of ATHENA-like atrial fibrillation/flutter patients with Medicare supplemental insurance (n=10,200) and diagnosis-related group costs of adverse event-related hospitalizations were applied to hospitalizations occurring in ATHENA. The impact of cost variation was assessed using Monte Carlo simulation. In ATHENA, dronedarone reduced the overall CV hospitalization rate (vs. placebo) by 29% over the first 12 months (33.36 vs. 47.19 events per 100 patients) and by 25% over the full study (51.15 vs. 68.55 events per 100 patients). Adverse event-related hospitalization rates (dronedarone vs. placebo) were low (0.48 vs. 0.21 and 0.56 vs. 0.26 events per 100 patients over 12 months and the full study, respectively). Overall hospitalization cost savings were estimated at $1329 and $1763 per patient over 12 months and the full study, respectively. Cost savings were relatively stable [mean (95% confidence interval): $1330 ($994-$1676) for the first 12 months and $1763 ($1369-$2184) for the full study] over 10,000 cycles of random variation.

The cost-utility of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and critical appraisal of economic evaluations.

BACKGROUND: A health technology assessment (HTA) of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (CA-AF) was commissioned by the Belgian government and performed by the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE). In this context, a systematic review of the economic literature was performed to assess the procedure's value for money. METHODS: A systematic search for economic literature about the cost-effectiveness of CA-AF was performed by consulting various databases: CRD (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) HTA and CDSR (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) Technology Assessment, websites of HTA institutes, NHS EED (NHS Economic Evaluation Database), Medline (OVID), EMBASE and EconLit. No time or language restrictions were imposed and pre-defined selection criteria were used. The two-step selection procedure was performed by two persons. References of the selected studies were checked for additional relevant citations. RESULTS: Out of 697 references, seven relevant studies were selected. Based on current evidence and economic considerations, the rationale to support catheter ablation as first-line treatment was lacking.The economic evaluations for second-line catheter ablation included several assumptions that make the results rather optimistic or subject to large uncertainty. First, overall AAD (antiarrhythmic drugs) use after ablation was higher in reality than assumed in the economic evaluations, which had its impact on costs and effects. Second, several models focused on the impact of ablation on preventing stroke. This was questionable because there was no direct hard evidence from RCTs to support this assumption. An indirect impact through stroke on mortality should also be regarded with caution. Furthermore, all models included an impact on quality of life (QoL)/utility and assumed a long-term impact. Unfortunately, none of the RCTs measured QoL with a generic utility instrument and information on the long-term impact on both mortality and QoL was lacking. CONCLUSIONS: Catheter ablation is associated with high initial costs and may lead to life-threatening complications. Its cost-effectiveness depends on the belief one places on the impact on utility and/or preventing stroke, and the duration of these effects. Having no hard evidence for these important variables is rather troublesome. Although the technique is widely spread, the scientific evidence is insufficient for drawing conclusions about the intervention's cost-effectiveness.

Evaluation of the cost of atrial fibrillation during emergency hospitalization.

OBJECTIVE: The number of hospitalizations for atrial fibrillation has increased dramatically. This increase, in the number of hospital stays will continue, given the growth projections based on epidemiological data, and will contribute to significantly increase expenses for the social security system.The objective of this study was to evaluate the length of hospital stay, the average cost borne by social security, and the types of hospital stay expenditures for patients admitted through the emergency department for atrial fibrillation. METHODS: Patients were identified by using the minimal clinical summaries of seven general hospitals in Belgium in 2008. Only hospitalized patients having as primary diagnosis code ICD-9-CM 42731 'atrial fibrillation'were selected for this study. Hospital billing files were analysed in order to isolate the costs borne by social security. Outliers were isolated in order not to have results influenced by patients having an atypical length of stay. RESULTS: Results show that the mean length of stay was 8.6 days and the mean cost charged to social security was euro 3,066.02 per hospital stay.The mean cost of care was strongly associated with the degree of severity index related to the APR-DRG. Approximately 85% of the total cost was related to the cost of hospital days and medical procedures with medical imaging and laboratory tests being the two main cost inductors. 18% of patients had cardioversion during their hospital stay, including 4% who had only that treatment. 19% of patients used amiodarone. Flecainide and propafenone were also used, but less frequently. CONCLUSIONS: The mean cost of care for AF patients admitted via the emergency department is strongly associated with the degree of severity. Approximately 85% of the total cost is related to the cost of hospital days and medical procedures. Hypertension is the most common secondary diagnosis. An optimal treatment of this risk factor could help to reduce the risk of atrial fibrillation, and thereby reduce the morbidity and costs associated with this disease.

[Lone atrial fibrillation--relevance for medical underwriting]. / Idiopathisches Vorhofflimmern--Bedeutung in der medizinischen Risikoprüfung.

Atrial fibrillation is a common and multifaceted cardiac arrhythmia. At present rhythm and rate control can be considered equal regarding morbidity and mortality. Following scientific findings in the past years new therapeutic strategies and treatment options were developed. Therefore, a decision must be made not only between rate and rhythm control but also between the different antithrombotic drug regimes. Oral thrombin and factor X inhibitors herald a new era in antithrombotic therapy. The lack of necessity for routine INR monitoring certainly constitutes one of the greatest advantages of these novel agents in everyday clinical practice. Pulmonary vein isolation is a catheter-based treatment option for atrial fibrillation enabling the cure of arrhythmias for many patients--despite the high rate of recurrence. Many of these new therapeutical options lack long-term findings and previous successes are to be regarded with certain prudence.

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: who, why and does it work?

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia. For many years, treatment was predominantly pharmacological. The identification of signals from the pulmonary veins as critical to AF in many patients led to catheter ablation targeting these signals. Catheter ablation is more effective than antiarrhythmic drugs at restoring sinus rhythm, and may improve mortality, morbidity and quality of life in patients with symptomatic AF. There is evidence to suggest that catheter ablation would be even more beneficial if undertaken earlier in the disease process. Cost effectiveness of catheter ablation remains under assessment, but it does meet the NICE definition of cost efficacy and the figure improves as stroke risk rises. It is true that long-term data are lacking. However, until results of current long-term studies become available, ablation will continue to be reserved predominantly for patients with drug-refractory, symptomatic AF.

Bayesian meta-analysis on medical devices: application to implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to describe and illustrate a method to obtain early estimates of the effectiveness of a new version of a medical device. METHODS: In the absence of empirical data, expert opinion may be elicited on the expected difference between the conventional and modified devices. Bayesian Mixed Treatment Comparison (MTC) meta-analysis can then be used to combine this expert opinion with existing trial data on earlier versions of the device. We illustrate this approach for a new four-pole implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) compared with conventional ICDs, Class III anti-arrhythmic drugs, and conventional drug therapy for the prevention of sudden cardiac death in high risk patients. Existing RCTs were identified from a published systematic review, and we elicited opinion on the difference between four-pole and conventional ICDs from experts recruited at a cardiology conference. RESULTS: Twelve randomized controlled trials were identified. Seven experts provided valid probability distributions for the new ICDs compared with current devices. The MTC model resulted in estimated relative risks of mortality of 0.74 (0.60-0.89) (predictive relative risk [RR] = 0.77 [0.41-1.26]) and 0.83 (0.70-0.97) (predictive RR = 0.84 [0.55-1.22]) with the new ICD therapy compared to Class III anti-arrhythmic drug therapy and conventional drug therapy, respectively. These results showed negligible differences from the preliminary results for the existing ICDs. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed method incorporating expert opinion to adjust for a modification made to an existing device may play a useful role in assisting decision makers to make early informed judgments on the effectiveness of frequently modified healthcare technologies.

Applying health economics for policy decision making: do devices differ from drugs?

Medical devices pose unique challenges for economic evaluation and associated decision-making processes that differ from pharmaceuticals. We highlight and discuss these challenges in the context of cardiac device therapy, based on a systematic review of relevant economic evaluations. Key challenges include practical difficulties in conducting randomized clinical trials, allowing for a 'learning curve' and user characteristics, accounting for the wider organizational impacts of introducing new devices, and allowing for variations in product characteristics and prices over time.

Drugs vs. ablation for the treatment of atrial fibrillation: the evidence supporting catheter ablation.

Treatment strategy for atrial fibrillation (AF) is a controversial matter. Catheter ablation is increasingly being used to treat patients with AF, and recent studies have reported success rates >80% for paroxysmal AF and >70% for persistent AF. The purpose of this work is to review the evidence supporting catheter ablation and compare it with pharmacological treatment in the management of AF.

Cost-Utility of Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure: An Economic Evaluation.

Background Recent trials comparing catheter ablation to medical therapy in patients with heart failure (HF) with symptomatic atrial fibrillation despite first-line management have demonstrated a reduction in adverse outcomes. We performed an economic evaluation to estimate the cost-utility of catheter ablation as second line therapy in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Methods and Results A Markov model with health states of alive, dead, and alive with amiodarone toxicity was constructed, using the perspective of the Canadian healthcare payer. Patients in the alive states were at risk of HF and non-HF hospitalizations. Parameters were obtained from randomized trials and Alberta health system data for costs and outcomes. A lifetime time horizon was adopted, with discounting at 3.0% annually. Probabilistic and 1-way sensitivity analyses were performed. Costs are reported in 2018 Canadian dollars. A patient treated with catheter ablation experienced lifetime costs of $64 960 and 5.63 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), compared with $49 865 and 5.18 QALYs for medical treatment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $35 360/QALY (95% CI, $21 518-77 419), with a 90% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000/QALY. A minimum mortality reduction of 28%, or a minimum duration of benefit of >1 to 2 years was required for catheter ablation to be attractive at this threshold. Conclusions Catheter ablation is likely to be cost-effective as a second line intervention for patients with HF with symptomatic atrial fibrillation, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $35 360/QALY, as long as over half of the relative mortality benefit observed in extant trials is borne out in future studies.

The impact of new and emerging clinical data on treatment strategies for atrial fibrillation.

INTRODUCTION: The Atrial Fibrillation (AF) Exchange Group, an international multidisciplinary group concerned with the management of AF, was convened to review recent advances in the field and the potential impact on treatment strategies. METHODS: Issues discussed included epidemiology and the impact of the rising incidence of AF on health care systems, developments in pharmacological and surgical interventions in the management of arrhythmias and thromboprophylaxis, the potential to affect treatment strategies, and barriers to implementing them. RESULTS: The incidence of AF and the associated burden on health care systems are increasing with aging populations, prevalence of comorbidities and more effective treatment of cardiovascular diseases. Advances in available medical treatments, in particular dronedarone and dabigatran, with other products in development, offer the possibility of changes in treatment paradigms and a greater emphasis on reducing hospitalizations and improvement in long-term outcomes instead of a symptom/safety-driven approach in which the priority is symptom suppression without provoking drug toxicity. Developments in catheter ablation techniques may mean that, in experienced centers, ablation may be offered as first-line treatment in selected patient populations. Barriers to optimal treatment include underdiagnosis, lack of recognition as a serious condition and as a risk factor for stroke, limited access to care, inadequate implementation of guidelines, and poor adherence to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The focus of the management of AF may be changing as a consequence of new treatments based on the outcome improvements they offer. However, the benefits will not be fully realized if guidelines and guidance are not observed in routine clinical practice.

Economic Evaluation of Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction may improve survival and other cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: We constructed a decision-analytic Markov model to estimate the costs and benefits of catheter ablation and medical management in patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%) and atrial fibrillation over a lifetime horizon. Evidence from the published literature informed the model inputs, including clinical effectiveness data from meta-analyses. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. A 3% discount rate was applied to both future costs and benefits. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio assessed from the US health care sector perspective. RESULTS: Catheter ablation was associated with 6.47 (95% CI, 5.89-6.93) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and a total cost of $105 657 (95% CI, $55 311-$191 934; 2018 US dollars), compared with 5.30 (95% CI, 5.20-5.39) QALYs and $63 040 (95% CI, $37 624-$102 260) for medical management. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for catheter ablation compared with medical management was $38 496 (95% CI, $5583-$117 510) per QALY gained. Model inputs with the greatest variation on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates were the cost of ablation and the effect of catheter ablation on mortality reduction. When assuming a more conservative estimate of the treatment effect of catheter ablation on mortality (hazard ratio of 0.86), the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $74 403 per QALY gained. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained, atrial fibrillation ablation was found to be economically favorable compared with medical management in 95% of simulations. CONCLUSIONS: Catheter ablation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients and atrial fibrillation may be considered economically attractive at current benchmarks for societal willingness-to-pay in the United States.