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

T. Wilke
{"title":"Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Medication in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: a Propensity-Matched Analysis Based on a German Claims Data Set","authors":"T. Wilke","doi":"10.17303/JCRTO.2019.5.203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aims: Main objective of our analysis was to assess the long-term clinical and health economics outcomes of catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic medication therapy in Germany. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of anonymized claims data covering the years 2010-2014. Patients with at least one diagnosis of AF and a minimum follow-up period of twelve months (excluding death) were included and assigned into two treatment groups: AF ablation and antiarrhythmic medication. To balance different patient characteristics in both groups, the final analysis was based on propensity score-matched (PSM) cohorts. Results: Of 498,253 AF patients, 2,404 could be assigned to the final analysis population – 1,202 patients in each group. The difference in the all-cause mortality rate reached statistical significance after 24 months of observation (1.5% versus 3.1% (p=0.015)) and after 36 months (1.7% versus 4.8% (p=0.005)). We could not identify any significant difference between the groups in cardiovascular events (amongst others stroke, TIA, myocardial infarction) over the three-year observation period. Direct cardiology-associated healthcare costs after index date (excluding catheter ablation procedure) were significantly different between the groups in the first and third observational year (third-year costs of €1,618 in the ablation group versus €2,462 in the medication group; p<0.007). Conclusion: Over a period of 36 months, all-cause mortality in AF patients who underwent catheter ablation was found to be significantly lower compared to AF patients who received antiarrhythmic medication. Direct cardiology healthcare costs after the ablation procedure proved to be consistently and significantly lower in comparison with medication therapy.","PeriodicalId":15189,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutic Oncology","volume":"100 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutic Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17303/JCRTO.2019.5.203","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: Main objective of our analysis was to assess the long-term clinical and health economics outcomes of catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic medication therapy in Germany. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of anonymized claims data covering the years 2010-2014. Patients with at least one diagnosis of AF and a minimum follow-up period of twelve months (excluding death) were included and assigned into two treatment groups: AF ablation and antiarrhythmic medication. To balance different patient characteristics in both groups, the final analysis was based on propensity score-matched (PSM) cohorts. Results: Of 498,253 AF patients, 2,404 could be assigned to the final analysis population – 1,202 patients in each group. The difference in the all-cause mortality rate reached statistical significance after 24 months of observation (1.5% versus 3.1% (p=0.015)) and after 36 months (1.7% versus 4.8% (p=0.005)). We could not identify any significant difference between the groups in cardiovascular events (amongst others stroke, TIA, myocardial infarction) over the three-year observation period. Direct cardiology-associated healthcare costs after index date (excluding catheter ablation procedure) were significantly different between the groups in the first and third observational year (third-year costs of €1,618 in the ablation group versus €2,462 in the medication group; p<0.007). Conclusion: Over a period of 36 months, all-cause mortality in AF patients who underwent catheter ablation was found to be significantly lower compared to AF patients who received antiarrhythmic medication. Direct cardiology healthcare costs after the ablation procedure proved to be consistently and significantly lower in comparison with medication therapy.
房颤患者的导管消融与抗心律失常药物:基于德国索赔数据集的倾向匹配分析
目的:我们分析的主要目的是评估德国导管消融与抗心律失常药物治疗的长期临床和健康经济学结果。方法:对2010-2014年的匿名索赔数据进行回顾性分析。至少有一种房颤诊断和至少12个月随访期(不包括死亡)的患者被纳入,并被分配到两个治疗组:房颤消融和抗心律失常药物。为了平衡两组患者的不同特征,最终的分析是基于倾向评分匹配(PSM)队列。结果:498253例房颤患者中,2404例可分配到最终分析人群,每组1202例。观察24个月后(1.5%比3.1% (p=0.015))和36个月后(1.7%比4.8% (p=0.005))全因死亡率差异有统计学意义。在三年的观察期内,我们没有发现两组在心血管事件(包括中风、TIA、心肌梗死)方面有任何显著差异。指标日期后的直接心脏病相关医疗费用(不包括导管消融术)在第1年和第3年观察年组间存在显著差异(消融术组第三年费用为1,618欧元,而药物组为2,462欧元;p < 0.007)。结论:在36个月的时间里,接受导管消融的房颤患者的全因死亡率明显低于接受抗心律失常药物治疗的房颤患者。与药物治疗相比,消融术后的直接心脏病学医疗费用持续且显著降低。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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