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.