Heart rhythm O2 · 2022
Economic Evaluation of Contact Force Catheter Ablation for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation in the United States.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Osorio Jose, Mansour Moussa, Melby Daniel, Imhoff Ryan J, Hunter Tina D, Maccioni Sonia, Wei Tom, Natale Andrea
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most prevalent cardiac arrhythmia, and it increases the risk of stroke, heart failure, and other cardiac complications. Catheter ablation is well-established as a treatment for paroxysmal AF, and the recent PRECEPT (Prospective Review of the Safety and Effectiveness of the THERMOCOOL SMARTTOUCH SF Catheter Evaluated for Treating Symptomatic Persistent AF) clinical trial resulted in the catheter gaining approval for the treatment of persistent AF in the United States.
OBJECTIVES: To construct an economic simulation model, based on the results of the PRECEPT trial, to monetize the impact of radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) compared with medical therapy (MT).
METHODS: Cost-offset and break-even analyses were performed to assess the economic impact of RFCA vs MT for adult persistent AF patients. Three perspectives were considered: commercial payers, Medicare, and self-insured employers. A cohort-level decision tree model was developed and validated in TreeAge Pro 2019. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the robustness of findings.
RESULTS: For all 3 types of payer, RFCA had a higher initial cost compared with MT. However, reductions in health care utilization after ablation, driven by decreased cardiovascular hospitalizations, led to an annual cost offset of between $5037 and $8402 after the first year. Projecting this forward resulted in an estimated cost break-even after 5.9, 4.2, and 5.1 years for commercial payers, Medicare, and self-insured employers, respectively.
CONCLUSION: In addition to providing clinical benefits, RFCA may be a valuable economic investment for U.S. payers, substantially reducing utilization after the first year.
OBJECTIVES: To construct an economic simulation model, based on the results of the PRECEPT trial, to monetize the impact of radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) compared with medical therapy (MT).
METHODS: Cost-offset and break-even analyses were performed to assess the economic impact of RFCA vs MT for adult persistent AF patients. Three perspectives were considered: commercial payers, Medicare, and self-insured employers. A cohort-level decision tree model was developed and validated in TreeAge Pro 2019. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the robustness of findings.
RESULTS: For all 3 types of payer, RFCA had a higher initial cost compared with MT. However, reductions in health care utilization after ablation, driven by decreased cardiovascular hospitalizations, led to an annual cost offset of between $5037 and $8402 after the first year. Projecting this forward resulted in an estimated cost break-even after 5.9, 4.2, and 5.1 years for commercial payers, Medicare, and self-insured employers, respectively.
CONCLUSION: In addition to providing clinical benefits, RFCA may be a valuable economic investment for U.S. payers, substantially reducing utilization after the first year.