Cost, Efficiency and Outcomes of Pulsed Field Ablation versus Thermal Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: A Real World Study

Abstract

BackgroundWith the exponential growth of catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF), there is increasing interest in associated healthcare costs. Pulsed field ablation (PFA) using a single-shot pentaspline multi-electrode catheter has been shown to be safe and effective for AF CA, but its cost efficiency compared to conventional thermal ablation modalities (cryoballoon [CB] or radiofrequency [RF]) has not been evaluated. ObjectiveTo compare cost, efficiency, effectiveness and safety between PFA, CB and RF for AF ablation. MethodsWe studied 707 consecutive patients (208 PFA, 325 CB, 174 RF) undergoing first-time AF ablation. Individual procedural costs were calculated, including equipment, lab utilisation and hospital stay, and compared between ablation modalities, as effectiveness and safety. ResultsSkin-to-skin times and catheter lab times were significantly shorter with PFA (68min/102min) vs CB (91min/122min) and RF (89min/123 min); p<0.001. General anaesthesia utilisation differed across modalities (PFA 100%, CB 10.2%, RF 61.5%); p<0.001. Major complications occurred in 1% of cases, with no significant differences between modalities. Shorter procedural times resulted in lower staffing and lab costs with PFA, but these savings were offset by substantially higher equipment costs, resulting in higher overall median costs with PFA (£10,010) vs CB (£8,106) and RF (£8,949); p<0.001. ConclusionIn this contemporary real-world study of the three major AF CA modalities used concurrently, PFA had shorter skin-to-skin and catheter lab times than CB and RF, with similarly low rates of complications. However, PFA procedures were considerably more expensive, largely due to higher equipment cost.