Cost-Effectiveness of Various Risk Stratification Methods for Asymptomatic Ventricular Pre-Excitation

Abstract

Accessory pathways with "high-risk" properties confer a small but potential risk of sudden cardiac death. Pediatric guidelines advocate for either risk stratification or ablation in patients with ventricular pre-excitation but do not advocate specific methodology. We sought to compare the cost of differing risk-stratification methodologies in pediatric patients with ventricular pre-excitation in this single institutional, retrospective cohort study of asymptomatic pediatric patients who underwent risk stratification for ventricular pre-excitation. Institutional methodology consisted of stratification using graded exercise testing (GXT) followed by esophageal testing in patients without loss of pre-excitation and ultimately ablation in high-risk patients or patients who became clinically symptomatic during follow-up. A decision analysis model was used to compare this methodology with hypothetical methodologies using different components of the stratification technique and an "ablate all" method. One hundred and two pediatric patients with asymptomatic ventricular pre-excitation underwent staged risk stratification; 73% of patients were deemed low risk and avoided ablation and the remaining 27% ultimately were successfully ablated. The use of esophageal testing was associated with a 23% (p ≤0.0001) reduction in cost compared with GXT stratification alone and a 48% (p ≤0.0001) reduction compared with the "ablate all" model. GXT as a lone stratification method was also associated with a 15% cost reduction (p ≤0.0001) compared with the "ablate all" method. In conclusion, risk stratification of pediatric patients with asymptomatic ventricular pre-excitation is associated with reduced cost. These outcomes of cost-effectiveness need to be combined with the risks and benefits associated with ablation and risk stratification.