Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Research Articles

Cost Effectiveness of Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drugs for Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most prevalent cardiac arrhythmia and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Current international guidelines recommend antiarrhythmic drugs or catheter ablation (CA) as rhythm-control strategies for AF. This study aimed to comprehensively assess economic evaluations (EEs) of the treatment of AF by country income level. Seven electronic databases were systematically searched for EE literature until March 30, 2024, with no constraints on time or language. Two independent reviewers selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the quality of the data. Full EEs comparing CA with antiarrhythmic drugs for rhythm-control treatment were included; surgical or rate-control treatments were excluded. The quality of the included articles was assessed using the ECOBIAS checklist. Costs were converted to purchasing power parity US dollars for 2023. A random-effects meta-analysis was applied to pool incremental net benefit (INB) based on a heterogeneity test and its degree (I2 > 25% or Cochran's Q test < 0.1). We also explored heterogeneity and potential publication bias and conducted sensitivity and subgroup analyses. In total, 27 studies across nine countries were eligible, predominantly from high-income countries (n = 25), with a smaller subset from upper-middle-income countries (n = 2). Because of the heterogeneity among the studies, a random-effects model was selected over a fixed-effects model to pool INBs. Most studies (n = 21) favored CA as the cost-effective intervention, yielding an INB of $US23,796 (95% confidence interval [CI] 15,341-32,251) in high-income countries. However, heterogeneity was substantial (I2 = 99.67%). In upper-middle-income countries, the estimated INB was $US18,330 (95% CI - 11,900-48,526). The publication bias results showed no evidence of asymmetrical funnel plots. In this meta-analysis, CA emerged as a cost-effective rhythm-control treatment for AF when compared with antiarrhythmic drugs, particularly in high-income countries. However, economic evidence for upper-middle-income countries is lacking, and no primary evaluations were found for low-middle-income and low-income countries. Further EEs are necessary to expand the understanding of AF treatment globally.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Catheter Ablation Versus Anti-arrhythmic Drugs for Treatment of Ventricular Arrhythmia.

Catheter ablation (CA) and anti-arrhythmic drugs (AADs) minimize implanted cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks in individuals with ischemic cardiomyopathy and an ICD, while the best strategy is still unknown. CA has been proposed as a potentially effective means of reducing the occurrence of ICD events in a number of studies; however, there were insufficient relevant dates from randomized controlled trials. A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials were carried out to evaluate the efficacy of CA for the prevention of VA in patients with ischemic heart disease. Cardiovascular mortality, an unscheduled hospitalization due to increasing heart failure, appropriate ICD shock, or serious treatment-related consequences comprised the composite primary outcome. AADs were examined in six trials (n = 1564; follow-up = 15 ± 8 months), while CA was evaluated in four trials (n = 682; follow-up = 12 ± 6 months). Both CA (odds ratio (OR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-0.82, p = 0.001) and AADs (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.32-0.84, p = 0.034) significantly reduced the number of suitable ICD interventions, with no discernible difference between the two treatment approaches. AADs were observed to reduce incorrect ICD interventions (OR 0.38, p = 0.001), but CA did not. During follow-up, there was no correlation seen between reduced mortality and either CA or AAD. When compared to AAD, CA decreased the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, adequate ICD shock, heart failure-related hospitalization, or severe treatment-related consequences in ICD patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and symptomatic VT.

Long-term effects of catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic drugs on health-related quality of life in patients with atrial fibrillation: the CAPTAF randomized clinical trial revisited

Abstract Background Data on long-term effects of catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and atrial fibrillation (AF) burden are limited. The study aimed to assess long-term HRQoL and rhythm data in symptomatic AF patients. Methods The 75 patients who underwent ablation and 74 receiving AAD in the Catheter Ablation compared with Pharmacological Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation (CAPTAF) trial were followed for 48 months comparison of General Health using 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, time to first AF-episode ≥1 hour, and AF burden, recorded by implantable cardiac monitors. Results 147 patients completed follow-up, with seven crossovers in the ablation group and 34 crossovers in the AAD group. General Health improved by ablation, median 62 points at baseline to 79.2 points at follow-up (p&amp;lt;0.001), and by AAD from median 67 to 77 points (p&amp;lt;0.001), without treatment differences (p=0.77). Time to first AF-episode ≥1 hour was longer, median 257 days (ablation group) versus 180 days (AAD group), p=0.025. The cumulative AF burden during follow-up was lower in the ablation (median 0.3% [interquartile range 0, 1.4]) versus AAD group (1.6% [0.1, 11.0]), p=0.01. The cumulative reduction in AF burden compared with baseline was greater in the ablation (median -89.5% [-98.4, -51.3]) versus AAD group (-52.7% [-92.6, 263.6]), p=0.001). Conclusions HRQoL improvement at long-term did not differ between ablation and AAD despite a larger reduction in AF burden after ablation. The results should be interpreted in the light of a four times higher crossover rate in the AAD group.

Catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic drug therapy for sustained ventricular tachycardia in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

Ventricular tachycardia (VT) is the primary cause of sudden cardiac death in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). However, the strategy for VT treatment in HCM patients remains unclear. This study is aimed to compare the effectiveness of catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy for sustained VT in patients with HCM. A total of 28 HCM patients with sustained VT at 4 different centers between December 2012 and December 2021 were enrolled. Twelve underwent catheter ablation (ablation group) and sixteen received AAD therapy (AAD group). The primary outcome was VT recurrence during follow-up. Baseline characteristics were comparable between two groups. After a mean follow-up of 31.4 ± 17.5 months, the primary outcome occurred in 35.7% of the ablation group and 90.6% of the AAD group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.29 [95%CI, 0.10-0.89]; P = 0.021). No differences in hospital admission due to cardiovascular cause (25.0% vs. 71.0%; P = 0.138) and cardiovascular cause-related mortality/heart transplantation (9.1% vs. 50.6%; P = 0.551) were observed. However, there was a significant reduction in the composite endpoint of VT recurrence, hospital admission due to cardiovascular cause, cardiovascular cause-related mortality, or heart transplantation in ablation group as compared to that of AAD group (42.9% vs. 93.7%; HR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.12-0.95]; P = 0.029). In HCM patients with sustained VT, catheter ablation reduced the VT recurrence, and the composite endpoint of VT recurrence, hospital admission due to cardiovascular cause, cardiovascular cause-related mortality, or heart transplantation as compared to AAD.

Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drugs as First-Line Therapy for Treatment-Naive Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Evidence on the relative safety and efficacy of atrial fibrillation catheter ablation and antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) as the first-line therapy for patients with treatment-naive atrial fibrillation (AF) remains disputed. Digital databases were queried to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. The incidence of recurrent AF, major adverse cardiovascular events, and its components (all-cause death, nonfatal stroke, and bleeding) were compared using the DerSimonian and Laird method under the random-effects model to calculate pooled unadjusted risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 6 randomized controlled trials consisting of 1,120 patients (574 ablation and 549 AADs) were included in the final analysis. Over a median follow-up of 1year, the risk of any AF recurrence (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.75) was significantly lower in patients receiving ablation than in patients receiving AADs. However, there was similar risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 2.65, 95% CI 0.61 to 11.46), trial-defined composite end point of adverse events (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.80), stroke (RR 2.42, 95% CI 0.22 to 26.51), all-cause mortality (RR 1.98, 95% CI 0.28 to 13.90), and procedure/medication failure (RR 2.65, 95% CI 0.61 to 11.46) with both therapies. In conclusion, in patients presenting with treatment-naive AF, ablation as a first-line therapy lowers the risk of AF recurrence with no associated increase in major adverse events, stroke, and mortality compared with AADs.

The Effectiveness of Catheter Ablation in the Management of Ventricular Tachycardia in Comparison With Antiarrhythmic Drugs in Patients With Structural Heart Disease: A Meta-Analysis.

The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the safety and efficacy of catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) in the management of ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients with structural heart diseases. Two independent investigators searched electronic databases including PubMed, Cochrane, and Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE) using keywordcombinations (Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and free terms)such as "catheter ablation," "ventricular tachycardia," "escalation," and "antiarrhythmic drugs" from inception to November 30, 2022. The primary efficacy outcomes included recurrence of VT at follow-up, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. The secondary efficacy outcomes assessed in the current meta-analysis included implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shock and hospitalization due to cardiac reasons. Safety outcomes included treatment-related adverse events and serious adverse events. A total of three studies were included in this meta-analysis. Therewas no significant difference in the risk of recurrence of VT (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.72-1.24, p-value: 0.67), all-cause mortality (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.67, 1.46, p-value: 0.98), cardiovascular mortality (risk ratio (RR): 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56-1.45, p-value: 0.67),incidence of ICD shocks (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.76-1.29, p-value: 0.93, I-square: 0%), and hospitalization due to cardiac reasons in follow-up (RR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.55-1.07, p-value: 0.12) between the catheter ablation group and the antiarrhythmic druggroup. However, the risk of treatment-related adverse events was lower in the ablation group compared to the antiarrhythmic medicine (AAM) group (RR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.29-0.67, p-value: 0.0001). In this meta-analysis of three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) among patients with structural heart disease who had ventricular tachycardia, the incidence of the recurrence of VT, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and ICD shock was not significantly different between patients who received catheter ablation and antiarrhythmic drugs. However, regarding safety, catheter ablation is a safe procedure with a low risk of treatment-related events compared to antiarrhythmic drugs.

Cost-Effectiveness of Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation: The CABANA Randomized Clinical Trial.

In the CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation), catheter ablation did not significantly reduce the primary end point of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest compared with drug therapy by intention-to-treat, but did improve the quality of life and freedom from atrial fibrillation recurrence. In the heart failure subgroup, ablation improved both survival and quality of life. Cost-effectiveness was a prespecified CABANA secondary end point. Medical resource use data were collected for all CABANA patients (N=2204). Costs for hospital-based care were assigned using prospectively collected bills from US patients (n=1171); physician and medication costs were assigned using the Medicare Fee Schedule and National Average Drug Acquisition Costs, respectively. Extrapolated life expectancies were estimated using age-based survival models. Quality-of-life adjustments were based on EQ-5D-based utilities measured during the trial. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, comparing ablation with drug therapy on the basis of intention-to-treat, and assessed from the US health care sector perspective. Costs in the first 3 months averaged $20 794±SD 1069 higher with ablation compared with drug therapy. The cumulative within-trial 5-year cost difference was $19 245 (95% CI, $11 360-$27 170) and the lifetime mean cost difference was $15 516 (95% CI, -$2963 to $35,512) higher with ablation than with drug therapy. The drug therapy arm accrued an average of 12.5 life-years (LYs) and 10.7 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). For the ablation arm, the corresponding estimates were 12.6 LYs and 11.0 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $57 893 per QALY gained, with 75% of bootstrap replications yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$100 000 per QALY gained. With no quality-of-life/utility adjustments, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $183 318 per LY gained. Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation was economically attractive compared with drug therapy in the CABANA Trial overall at present benchmarks for health care value in the United States on the basis of projected incremental QALYs but not LYs alone.

Association Between Sex and Treatment Outcomes of Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Versus Drug Therapy: Results From the CABANA Trial.

Among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), women are less likely to receive catheter ablation and may have more complications and less durable results. Most information about sex-specific differences after ablation comes from observational data. We prespecified an examination of outcomes by sex in the 2204-patient CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation). CABANA randomized patients with AF age ≥65 years or <65 years with ≥1 risk factor for stroke to a strategy of catheter ablation with pulmonary vein isolation versus drug therapy with rate/rhythm control agents. The primary composite outcome was death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest, and key secondary outcomes included AF recurrence. CABANA randomized 819 (37%) women (ablation 413, drug 406) and 1385 men (ablation 695, drug 690). Compared with men, women were older (median age, 69 years versus 67 years for men), were more symptomatic (48% Canadian Cardiovascular Society AF Severity Class 3 or 4 versus 39% for men), had more symptomatic heart failure (42% with New York Heart Association Class ≥II versus 32% for men), and more often had a paroxysmal AF pattern at enrollment (50% versus 39% for men) (P<0.0001 for all). Women were less likely to have ancillary (nonpulmonary vein) ablation procedures performed during the index procedure (55.7% versus 62.2% in men, P=0.043), and complications from treatment were infrequent in both sexes. For the primary outcome, the hazard ratio for those who underwent ablation versus drug therapy was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.62-1.65) in women and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.51-1.05) in men (interaction P value=0.299). The risk of recurrent AF was significantly reduced in patients undergoing ablation compared with those receiving drug therapy regardless of sex, but the effect was greater in men (hazard ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.51-0.82] for women versus hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.40-0.58] for men; interaction P value=0.060). Clinically relevant treatment-related strategy differences in the primary and secondary clinical outcomes of CABANA were not seen between men and women, and there were no sex differences in adverse events. The CABANA trial results support catheter ablation as an effective treatment strategy for both women and men. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00911508.

Ablation Versus Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure: Results From the CABANA Trial.

In patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation (AF), several clinical trials have reported improved outcomes, including freedom from AF recurrence, quality of life, and survival, with catheter ablation. This article describes the treatment-related outcomes of the AF patients with heart failure enrolled in the CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation). The CABANA trial randomized 2204 patients with AF who were ≥65 years old or <65 years old with ≥1 risk factor for stroke at 126 sites to ablation with pulmonary vein isolation or drug therapy including rate or rhythm control drugs. Of these, 778 (35%) had New York Heart Association class >II at baseline and form the subject of this article. The CABANA trial's primary end point was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Of the 778 patients with heart failure enrolled in CABANA, 378 were assigned to ablation and 400 to drug therapy. Ejection fraction at baseline was available for 571 patients (73.0%), and 9.3% of these had an ejection fraction <40%, whereas 11.7% had ejection fractions between 40% and 50%. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the ablation arm had a 36% relative reduction in the primary composite end point (hazard ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.41-0.99]) and a 43% relative reduction in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.33-0.96]) compared with drug therapy alone over a median follow-up of 48.5 months. AF recurrence was decreased with ablation (hazard ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.42-0.74]). The adjusted mean difference for the AFEQT (Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life) summary score averaged over the entire 60-month follow-up was 5.0 points, favoring the ablation arm (95% CI, 2.5-7.4 points), and the MAFSI (Mayo Atrial Fibrillation-Specific Symptom Inventory) frequency score difference was -2.0 points, favoring ablation (95% CI, -2.9 to -1.2). In patients with AF enrolled in the CABANA trial who had clinically diagnosed stable heart failure at trial entry, catheter ablation produced clinically important improvements in survival, freedom from AF recurrence, and quality of life relative to drug therapy. These results, obtained in a cohort most of whom had preserved left ventricular function, require independent trial verification. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00911508; Unique identifier: NCT0091150.

Does Catheter Ablation Lower the Long-Term Risk of Stroke and Mortality in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation? A Concise Review of the Current State of Knowledge.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia worldwide and carries a significant risk of morbidity and mortality. Multiple trials have highlighted the benefit of catheter ablation over medical therapy in restoring sinus rhythm and improving quality of life. Whether it reduces long-term risk of stroke and mortality is still unclear.We performed a literature search using the PubMed database to review the current state of knowledge regarding the long-term outcomes of stroke and mortality in ablated patients compared to patients who receive medical therapy. Our review mainly consisted of recent randomized controlled trials and large observational studies. Results from large observational studies show that catheter ablation significantly reduces the risk of stroke in high-risk patients and mortality compared to medical therapy. However, randomized controlled trials have only demonstrated a mortality benefit in patients with comorbid systolic heart failure. In patients with paroxysmal AF, ablation therapy significantly limits the progression to persistent AF and has a higher efficacy in restoring sinus rhythm. Maintenance of sinus rhythm is the most important factor associated with lower long term risk of stroke and mortality.Large randomized controlled trials similar to the Catheter Ablation Versus Anti-arrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation (CABANA) trial are still needed to clarify whether catheter ablation is superior over medical therapy in improving the long-term outcomes of stroke and mortality.

Recurrence of Atrial Fibrillation After Catheter Ablation or Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy in the CABANA Trial

BackgroundThe CABANA (Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation) trial randomized 2,204 patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) to catheter ablation or drug therapy. Analysis by intention-to-treat showed a nonsignificant 14% relative reduction in the primary outcome of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to assess recurrence of AF in the CABANA trial. MethodsThe authors prospectively studied CABANA patients using a proprietary electrocardiogram recording monitor for symptom-activated and 24-h AF auto detection. The AF recurrence endpoint was any post–90-day blanking atrial tachyarrhythmias lasting 30 s or longer. Biannual 96-h Holter monitoring was used to assess AF burden. Patients who used the CABANA monitors and provided 90-day post-blanking recordings qualified for this analysis (n = 1,240; 56% of CABANA population). Treatment comparisons were performed using a modified intention-to-treat approach. ResultsMedian age of the 1,240 patients was 68 years, 34.4% were women, and AF was paroxysmal in 43.0%. Over 60 months of follow-up, first recurrence of any symptomatic or asymptomatic AF (hazard ratio: 0.52; 95% confidence interval: 0.45 to 0.60; p < 0.001) or first symptomatic-only AF (hazard ratio: 0.49; 95% confidence interval: 0.39 to 0.61; p < 0.001) were both significantly reduced in the catheter ablation group. Baseline Holter AF burden in both treatment groups was 48%. At 12 months, AF burden in ablation patients averaged 6.3%, and in drug-therapy patients, 14.4%. AF burden was significantly less in catheter ablation compared with drug-therapy patients across the 5-year follow-up (p < 0.001). These findings were not sensitive to the baseline pattern of AF. ConclusionsCatheter ablation was effective in reducing recurrence of any AF by 48% and symptomatic AF by 51% compared with drug therapy over 5 years of follow-up. Furthermore, AF burden was also significantly reduced in catheter ablation patients, regardless of their baseline AF type. (Catheter Ablation vs Anti-arrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial [CABANA]; NCT00911508)

Cost-effectiveness of ablation of ventricular tachycardia in ischaemic cardiomyopathy: limitations in the trial evidence base

ObjectiveCatheter ablation is an important treatment for ventricular tachycardia (VT) that reduces the frequency of episodes of VT. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic drug...

Comparison of Long-Term Adverse Outcomes in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Having Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Medications

The impact of atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation versus chronic antiarrhythmic therapy alone on clinical outcomes such as death and stroke remains unclear. We compared adverse outcomes for AF ablation versus chronic antiarrhythmic therapy in 1,070 adults with AF treated between 2010 and 2014 in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California and Southern California healthcare delivery systems. Patients who underwent AF catheter ablation were matched to patients treated with only antiarrhythmic medications, based on age, gender, history of heart failure, history of coronary heart disease, history of hypertension, history of diabetes, and high-dimensional propensity score. We compared crude and adjusted rates of death, ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, intracranial hemorrhage, and hospitalization. The matched cohort of 535 patients treated with AF ablation and 535 treated with antiarrhythmic therapy had a median follow-up of 2.0 (interquartile range 1.1 to 3.5) years. There was no significant difference in adjusted rates of death (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.03 to 1.95), intracranial hemorrhage (adjusted HR 0.17, CI 0.02 to 1.71), ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (adjusted HR 0.53, CI 0.18 to 1.60), and heart failure hospitalization (adjusted HR 0.85, CI 0.34 to 2.12), although there was a trend toward improvement in these outcomes with ablation. However, there was a significantly increased risk of all-cause hospitalization following ablation (adjusted HR 1.60, CI 1.25 to 2.05). In a contemporary, multicenter, propensity-matched observational cohort, AF ablation was not significantly associated with death, intracranial hemorrhage, ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, or heart failure hospitalization, but was associated with a higher rate of all cause-hospitalization.

P3816Cost-effectiveness of ventricular tachycardia catheter ablation: limitations in the current trial evidence base

Abstract Introduction Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) have suffered from criticisms including a lack of generalisability as well as a lack of cost-effectiveness analysis of the different interventions being studied. Such analyses are used by organisations including the UK's National institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to inform system-level decisions regarding which treatments are funded. There is the potential for a growing chasm to exist between what is the latest innovation in cardiology and what can be afforded. Purpose To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ventricular tachycardia (VT) catheter ablation versus anti-arrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy in ischemic heart disease. Methods A decision-analytic Markov model was used to calculate the costs and health outcomes of catheter ablation or AAD treatment of VT for a hypothetical cohort of patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy andan implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Model inputs where informed using RCT-level evidence [Table 1] wherever possible. Costs were calculated from a UK perspective. Results Catheter ablation vs. AAD therapy had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £144,150 (€161,448) per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, over a five-year time horizon. The ICER for a ten-year time horizon was £75,074 (€84,083) and £69,986 (€78,384) over the cohort's lifetime. Using probabilistic sensitivity analyses to account for model parameter uncertainty, the likelihood of catheter ablation being cost-effective was only 11%, assuming a willingness to pay threshold of £30,000 used by the NICE [Figure 1]. Table 1. Summary of RCT level source data used to inform Markov model inputs Name of trial SMASH VT VTACH SMS CALYPSO VANISH VISTA Sample size 128 110 111 27 259 118 Mean age 67 66 67 64 68 66 Control AAD AAD AAD AAD AAD Clinical ablation Intervention Ablation Ablation Ablation Ablation Ablation Substrate ablation Length of follow up 22 months 24 months 28 months 6 months 28 months 12 months Mortality (%) 11% [AAD] 7% [AAD] 19% [AAD] 14% [AAD] 28% [AAD] 15% [C-ablation] vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. 9% [Ablation] 10% [Ablation] 17% [Ablation] 15% [Ablation] 27% [Ablation] 9% [S-Ablation] Readmission (%) 19% [AAD] 55% [AAD] 44% [AAD] 50% [AAD] 31% [AAD] 32% [C-ablation] vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. 12% [S-ablation] 6% [Ablation] 33% [Ablation] 39% [Ablation] 38% [Ablation] 25% [Ablation] Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve Conclusion Catheter ablation of VT is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with AAD therapy alone in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy implanted with an ICD based on pooled trial evidence. However, better designed studies incorporating detailed and more frequent quality of life assessment are needed to advise health policy in this field and to provide more informed cost-effectiveness analyses. Acknowledgement/Funding NIHR Academic Clinical Fellowship

First Line Radiofrequency Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drugs for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Treatment

First Line Radiofrequency Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drugs for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Treatment

Radiofrequency Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation: Meta-analysis of Safety and Efficacy.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) are the main treatments used for atrial fibrillation (AF). In recent years, a number of articles comparing the 2 treatments have begun to emerge. Though, the influence of follow-up time in the meta-analysis was not considered in these articles. However, more recently, large-scale clinical trial articles have included follow-up with the patients up to 5 years after treatment. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the impact of variable follow-up times on the recurrence of AF by observing both the short-term and long-term efficacy and safety of catheter ablation and AADs for the treatment of AF. The primary investigators of eligible randomized controlled trials were invited to contribute standardized outcome data. Random effect summary estimates were calculated as standardized mean differences and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals for continuous and binary outcomes. In this study, 9 randomized controlled trials (n = 1542 patients) were included. The rate of recurrence of AF with no limit on follow-up time, >12 months, >18 months, >24 months, >30 months, and approximately 36 months was compared. Furthermore, the gap between the RFA and AAD groups in the recurrence rate of AF was found to decrease inversely to follow-up time. When the follow-up time reached 24 months, the difference between RFA and AAD was relatively stable with an odds ratio of 0.45 (95% confidence interval: 0.32-0.62). Overall, RFA decreased adverse events in the remaining trials; however, AAD performed better in terms of safety and had fewer adverse events with RFA usually causing more serious complications. RFA is more advantageous in terms of recurrence rate of AF than drug therapy. In addition, the analysis suggests that this effect persists during long-term follow-up; however, these benefits appear to decrease with longer follow-up time. Finally, AAD performed better in terms of safety and had fewer adverse events.

Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Medication in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: a Propensity-Matched Analysis Based on a German Claims Data Set

Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Medication in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: a Propensity-Matched Analysis Based on a German Claims Data Set

Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Medication in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: a Propensity-Matched Analysis Based on a German Claims Data Set

Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Medication in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: a Propensity-Matched Analysis Based on a German Claims Data Set

Resource use and clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation with ablation versus antiarrhythmic drug treatment

BackgroundThe objective of our study was to compare resource use and clinical outcomes among atrial fibrillation (AF) patients who underwent catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) treatment.MethodsA retrospective cohort design using the Clinical Practice Research Data-Hospital Episode Statistics linkage data from England (2008–2013) was used. Patients undergoing catheter ablation treatment for AF were indexed to the date of first procedure. AAD patients with at least two different AAD drugs were indexed to the first fill of the second AAD. Patients were matched using 1:1 propensity matching. Primary endpoints including inpatient and outpatient visits were compared between ablation and AAD cohorts in the 4 months-1 year period after index. Secondary endpoints including heart failure, stroke, cardioversion, mortality, and a composite outcome were compared for the 4 months-3 years post-index period in the two groups. Cox-proportional hazards models were estimated for clinical outcomes comparison.ResultsA total of 558 patients were matched in the two groups for resource utilization comparison. The average number of cardiovascular (CV)-related outpatient visits in the 4–12 months post-index period were significantly lower in the ablation group versus the AAD group (1.76 vs 3.57, p < .0001). There was no significant difference in all-cause and CV-related inpatient visits and all-cause outpatient visits among the two groups. For secondary endpoints comparison, 615 matched patients in each group emerged. Ablation patients had 38% lower risk of heart failure (hazard ratio [HR] 0.62, p = 0.0318), 50% lower risk of mortality (HR 0.50, p = 0.0082), and 43% lower risk of experiencing a composite outcome (HR 0.57, p = 0.0009) as compared to AAD treatment cohort.ConclusionAF ablation was associated with significantly lower CV-related outpatient visits, and lower risk of heart failure and mortality versus AAD therapy.

PMD85 - Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Treatment Among Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Propensity-Matched Analysis

PMD85 - Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Treatment Among Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Propensity-Matched Analysis