Long-term clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of catheter vs thoracoscopic surgical ablation in long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation using continuous cardiac monitoring: CASA-AF randomized controlled trial

Abstract

BackgroundLong-term clinical outcomes of catheter ablation (CA) compared to thoracoscopic surgical ablation (SA) to treat patients with long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF) are not known. ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare the long-term (36-month) clinical efficacy, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness of SA and CA in LSPAF. MethodsParticipants were followed up for 3 years using implantable loop recorders and questionnaires to assess the change in quality of life. Intention-to-treat analyses were used to report the findings. ResultsOf the 115 patients with LSPAF treated, 104 (90.4%) completed 36-month follow-up [CA: n = 57 (95%); SA: n = 47 (85%)]. After a single procedure without antiarrhythmic drugs, 7 patients (12%) in the CA arm and 5 (11%) in the SA arm [hazard ratio 1.22; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81–1.83; P = .41] were free from atrial fibrillation/tachycardia (AF/AT) ≥30 seconds at 36 months. Thirty-three patients (58%) in the CA arm and 26 (55%) in the SA arm (hazard ratio 1.04; 95% CI 0.57–1.88; P = .91) had their AF/AT burden reduced by ≥75%. The overall impact on health-related quality of life was similar, with mean quality-adjusted life year estimates of 2.45 (95% CI 2.31–2.59) for CA and 2.32 (95% CI 2.13–2.52) for SA. Estimated costs were higher for SA (mean £24,682; 95% CI £21,746–£27,618) than for CA (mean £18,002; 95% CI £15,422–£20,581). ConclusionIn symptomatic LSPAF, CA and SA were equally effective at achieving arrhythmia outcomes (freedom from AF/AT ≥30 seconds and ≥75% burden reduction) after a single procedure without antiarrhythmic drugs. However, SA is significantly more costly than CA.