Radiofrequency ablation using the ThermoCool SmartTouch Catheter guided by ablation index versus antiarrhythmic drugs in atrial fibrillation treatment in China: a cost-consequence analysis.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Biqi Zhang, Jie Han, Dongchen Zhou, Jiajia Jiang, Jiawei Zhong, Yunlong Lu, Chenyu Zuo, Xingwei Lu, Jianwei Xuan, Aohan Zu, Yuxian He, Xingang Sun, Lu Chen, Liangrong Zheng
{"title":"Radiofrequency ablation using the ThermoCool SmartTouch Catheter guided by ablation index versus antiarrhythmic drugs in atrial fibrillation treatment in China: a cost-consequence analysis.","authors":"Biqi Zhang, Jie Han, Dongchen Zhou, Jiajia Jiang, Jiawei Zhong, Yunlong Lu, Chenyu Zuo, Xingwei Lu, Jianwei Xuan, Aohan Zu, Yuxian He, Xingang Sun, Lu Chen, Liangrong Zheng","doi":"10.57264/cer-2023-0035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> To evaluate the costs and consequences of two front-line atrial fibrillation (AF) treatments from Chinese healthcare system perspective: radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) using ThermoCool SmartTouch Catheter guided by Ablation Index (STAI), in comparison to antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs). <b>Patients & methods:</b> We simulated clinical and economic consequences for AF patients initially receiving STAI or AADs using a short-term decision tree model leading to a 10-year long-term Markov model. The model projected both clinical consequences and costs associated with, among others, AF, heart failure (HF), strokes, and deaths due to AF or AF related complications. Data informing the models included combination of a local real-world study and published clinical studies. <b>Results:</b> STAI was advantageous versus AADs on all 4 main clinical outcomes evaluated; AF: 25.83% lower (12.84% vs 38.67%), HF: 2.22% lower (1.33% vs 3.55%), stroke or post stroke: 1.82% lower (10.00% vs 11.82%) and deaths due to AF or AF related complications: 0.64% lower (4.11% vs 4.75%). The average total cost per patient in STAI group was ¥16,682 lower (¥123,124 vs ¥139,806). The one-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the difference in total cost was most sensitive to annual AF recurrence probability in AADs-treated patients. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 98.5% probability that RFCA treatment would result in cost savings by the end of the 10th year. <b>Conclusion:</b> Radiofrequency catheter ablation using SmartTouch catheter guided by Ablation Index was superior to AADs as the first-line AF treatment in Chinese setting with better clinical outcomes and at lower costs over a 10-year time horizon.</p>","PeriodicalId":15539,"journal":{"name":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","volume":" ","pages":"e230035"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10842291/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2023-0035","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the costs and consequences of two front-line atrial fibrillation (AF) treatments from Chinese healthcare system perspective: radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) using ThermoCool SmartTouch Catheter guided by Ablation Index (STAI), in comparison to antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs). Patients & methods: We simulated clinical and economic consequences for AF patients initially receiving STAI or AADs using a short-term decision tree model leading to a 10-year long-term Markov model. The model projected both clinical consequences and costs associated with, among others, AF, heart failure (HF), strokes, and deaths due to AF or AF related complications. Data informing the models included combination of a local real-world study and published clinical studies. Results: STAI was advantageous versus AADs on all 4 main clinical outcomes evaluated; AF: 25.83% lower (12.84% vs 38.67%), HF: 2.22% lower (1.33% vs 3.55%), stroke or post stroke: 1.82% lower (10.00% vs 11.82%) and deaths due to AF or AF related complications: 0.64% lower (4.11% vs 4.75%). The average total cost per patient in STAI group was ¥16,682 lower (¥123,124 vs ¥139,806). The one-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the difference in total cost was most sensitive to annual AF recurrence probability in AADs-treated patients. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 98.5% probability that RFCA treatment would result in cost savings by the end of the 10th year. Conclusion: Radiofrequency catheter ablation using SmartTouch catheter guided by Ablation Index was superior to AADs as the first-line AF treatment in Chinese setting with better clinical outcomes and at lower costs over a 10-year time horizon.

中国心房颤动治疗中使用 ThermoCool SmartTouch 导管的射频消融与抗心律失常药物的消融指数对比:成本-后果分析。
目的:从中国医疗系统的角度评估两种一线房颤(AF)治疗方法的成本和后果:在消融指数(STAI)指导下使用 ThermoCool SmartTouch 导管进行射频导管消融(RFCA),与抗心律失常药物(AADs)进行比较。患者和方法:我们使用一个短期决策树模型和一个为期 10 年的长期马尔可夫模型模拟了最初接受 STAI 或 AADs 治疗的房颤患者的临床和经济后果。该模型预测了心房颤动、心力衰竭(HF)、中风以及心房颤动或心房颤动相关并发症导致的死亡等相关临床后果和成本。为模型提供参考的数据包括当地的实际研究和已发表的临床研究。研究结果在评估的所有 4 项主要临床结果中,STAI 均优于 AADs;心房颤动:降低 25.83%(12.84% vs 38.67%),高血压:降低 2.22%(1.33% vs 3.55%),中风或中风后:降低 1.82%(10.84% vs 10.67%):心房颤动或心房颤动相关并发症导致的死亡降低 1.82%(10.00% vs 11.82%):降低了 0.64%(4.11% vs 4.75%)。STAI 组每位患者的平均总费用降低了 16,682 日元(123,124 日元 vs 139,806 日元)。单向敏感性分析表明,总成本的差异对 AADs 治疗患者每年的房颤复发概率最为敏感。概率敏感性分析表明,RFCA 治疗在第 10 年末节省费用的概率为 98.5%。结论以消融指数为指导,使用 SmartTouch 导管进行射频导管消融术作为中国房颤的一线治疗方法优于 AADs,且临床疗效更好,10 年内的成本更低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of comparative effectiveness research
Journal of comparative effectiveness research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
9.50%
发文量
121
期刊介绍: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides a rapid-publication platform for debate, and for the presentation of new findings and research methodologies. Through rigorous evaluation and comprehensive coverage, the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides stakeholders (including patients, clinicians, healthcare purchasers, and health policy makers) with the key data and opinions to make informed and specific decisions on clinical practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信