A cost-consequence analysis comparing three cardiac ablation strategies for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

Abstract

Background and aims Cardiac ablation is a well-established method for treating atrial fibrillation (AF). Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a non-thermal therapeutic alternative to radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and cryoballoon ablation (CRYO). PFA uses high-voltage electric pulses to target cells. The present analysis aims to quantify the costs, outcomes, and resources associated with these three ablation strategies for paroxysmal AF. Methods Real-world clinical data were prospectively collected during index hospitalization by three European medical centers (Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands) specialized in cardiac ablation. These data included procedure times (pre-procedural, skin-to-skin and post-procedural), resource use, and staff burden. Data regarding complications associated with each of the three treatment options and redo procedures were extracted from the literature. Costs were collected from hospital economic formularies and published cost databases. A cost-consequence model from the hospital perspective was built to estimate the impact of the three treatment options in terms of effectiveness and costs. Results Across the three centers, N = 91 patients were included over a period of 12 months. A significant difference was seen in pre-procedural time (mean ± SD, PFA: 13.6 ± 3.7 min, CRYO: 18.8 ± 6.6 min, RFA: 20.4 ± 6.4 min; p < .001). Procedural time (skin-to-skin) was also different across alternatives (PFA: 50.9 ± 22.4 min, CRYO: 74.5 ± 24.5 min, RFA: 140.2 ± 82.4 min; p < .0001). The model reported an overall cost of €216,535 per 100 patients treated with PFA, €301,510 per 100 patients treated with CRYO and €346,594 per 100 patients treated with RFA. Overall, the cumulative savings associated with PFA (excluding kit costs) were €850 and €1,301 per patient compared to CRYO and RFA, respectively. Conclusion PFA demonstrated shorter procedure time compared to CRYO and RFA. Model estimates indicate that these time savings result in cost savings for hospitals and reduce outlay on redo procedures. Clinical practice in individual hospitals varies and may impact the ability to transfer the results of this analysis to other settings.