Comparing pulsed field ablation and thermal energy catheter ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a cost-effectiveness analysis of the ADVENT trial.

BACKGROUND

Pulsed field ablation (PFA) has emerged as an effective technology in the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PFA vs. thermal ablation from a US healthcare payer perspective using data from a randomized trial.

METHODS

A hybrid decision tree and Markov model was developed comparing patients receiving PFA to thermal ablation (either radiofrequency or cryoballoon ablation) from a US healthcare payer perspective at 5-, 10-, 20-, and 40-year time horizons. Direct medical costs (in 2024 US Dollars), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the net monetary benefit were evaluated at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000/QALY. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test model uncertainty. The budget impact for a standard US healthcare payer with 1 million beneficiaries was also assessed.

RESULTS

Over a 40-year time horizon, PFA resulted in an additional 0.044 QALYs at a lower cost of $2,871 compared to thermal ablation. PFA was cost-effective in 54.9% of simulations. Anticoagulation and ablation procedure costs had the largest impact on model uncertainty. The expected cost savings per member per month for a US healthcare payer adopting PFA were $0.00015, $0.0059, and $0.02343 in years 1, 4, and 6, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

PFA was at least as cost-effective as conventional thermal ablation modalities for treatment of paroxysmal AF and potentially reduces US healthcare payer costs. Providers and payers should consider designating PFA among the preferred first-line therapies for eligible patients.