Yousef N. Bolous MD , Prosper Koto PhD , John L. Sapp MD, FRCPC, FHRS , Chris Gray MD, FRCPC , David C. Lee MBChB , Nicolas Berbenetz MD, FRCPC , Amir AbdelWahab MBBCh , Ratika Parkash MD, MS, FRCPC
{"title":"导管消融治疗心房颤动的成本分析:一项加拿大事后研究","authors":"Yousef N. Bolous MD , Prosper Koto PhD , John L. Sapp MD, FRCPC, FHRS , Chris Gray MD, FRCPC , David C. Lee MBChB , Nicolas Berbenetz MD, FRCPC , Amir AbdelWahab MBBCh , Ratika Parkash MD, MS, FRCPC","doi":"10.1016/j.cjco.2024.07.016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>There is a paucity of Canadian studies using patient-level data to analyze the costs of catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF). We sought to identify the health care resource use, costs, and cost predictors of CA.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A cost analysis was performed in a population of AF patients treated with CA in Central Zone Nova Scotia from 2010 to 2018. Costs were compared 2 years before ablation (pre-CA) with costs 2 years after (post-CA); the 3-month period post-CA was defined as the treatment window. Costs were also compared according to CA technology defined as before 2015 for patients treated with non-contact force sensing CA and after 2015 for patients treated with contact force sensing CA.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Heart failure hospitalizations, AF-related emergency department visits, acute inpatient admissions, and cardioversions all decreased after ablation. The cost difference post-CA vs pre-CA was CAD$18,869 (95% confidence interval [CI], $15,570-$22,168). This increase in costs was driven by costs incurred during the treatment window, which was $21,439 (95% CI, $20,468-$22,409). After excluding treatment window costs, the mean year 1 post-CA cost was $11,223 (95% CI, $9113-$13,334) and year 2 post-CA cost was $4555 (95% CI, $3145-$5965); both were lower than the pre-CA costs. Costs remained stable over the time frame of the study period, with no influence from new technologies on cost. The post-CA cost difference between the post-2015 and pre-2015 groups was $2573 (95% CI, -$2336 to $7481).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>We showed that although CA is expensive, it might be a cost-effective treatment modality for AF because of the associated reduction in costs and health care resource use.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36924,"journal":{"name":"CJC Open","volume":"6 11","pages":"Pages 1372-1378"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Cost Analysis of Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: A Canadian Pre-Post Study\",\"authors\":\"Yousef N. Bolous MD , Prosper Koto PhD , John L. Sapp MD, FRCPC, FHRS , Chris Gray MD, FRCPC , David C. Lee MBChB , Nicolas Berbenetz MD, FRCPC , Amir AbdelWahab MBBCh , Ratika Parkash MD, MS, FRCPC\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cjco.2024.07.016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>There is a paucity of Canadian studies using patient-level data to analyze the costs of catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF). We sought to identify the health care resource use, costs, and cost predictors of CA.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A cost analysis was performed in a population of AF patients treated with CA in Central Zone Nova Scotia from 2010 to 2018. Costs were compared 2 years before ablation (pre-CA) with costs 2 years after (post-CA); the 3-month period post-CA was defined as the treatment window. Costs were also compared according to CA technology defined as before 2015 for patients treated with non-contact force sensing CA and after 2015 for patients treated with contact force sensing CA.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Heart failure hospitalizations, AF-related emergency department visits, acute inpatient admissions, and cardioversions all decreased after ablation. The cost difference post-CA vs pre-CA was CAD$18,869 (95% confidence interval [CI], $15,570-$22,168). This increase in costs was driven by costs incurred during the treatment window, which was $21,439 (95% CI, $20,468-$22,409). After excluding treatment window costs, the mean year 1 post-CA cost was $11,223 (95% CI, $9113-$13,334) and year 2 post-CA cost was $4555 (95% CI, $3145-$5965); both were lower than the pre-CA costs. Costs remained stable over the time frame of the study period, with no influence from new technologies on cost. The post-CA cost difference between the post-2015 and pre-2015 groups was $2573 (95% CI, -$2336 to $7481).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>We showed that although CA is expensive, it might be a cost-effective treatment modality for AF because of the associated reduction in costs and health care resource use.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36924,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CJC Open\",\"volume\":\"6 11\",\"pages\":\"Pages 1372-1378\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CJC Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589790X24003226\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CJC Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589790X24003226","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景加拿大很少有研究使用患者层面的数据来分析心房颤动(AF)导管消融术(CA)的成本。我们试图确定 CA 的医疗资源使用、成本和成本预测因素。方法对 2010 年至 2018 年新斯科舍省中部地区接受 CA 治疗的房颤患者进行了成本分析。对消融前 2 年(消融前)的成本与消融后 2 年(消融后)的成本进行了比较;消融后 3 个月被定义为治疗窗口期。此外,还根据CA技术对费用进行了比较,对于采用非接触式力传感CA治疗的患者,CA技术定义为2015年之前;对于采用接触式力传感CA治疗的患者,CA技术定义为2015年之后。消融术后与消融术前的成本差异为 18,869 加元(95% 置信区间 [CI],15,570-22,168 加元)。费用增加的原因是治疗窗口期产生的费用,为 21,439 加元(95% 置信区间:20,468-22,409 加元)。剔除治疗窗口期的费用后,CA 后第一年的平均费用为 11223 美元(95% CI,9113-13334 美元),CA 后第二年的平均费用为 4555 美元(95% CI,3145-5965 美元);这两项费用均低于 CA 前的费用。在研究期间,成本保持稳定,新技术对成本没有影响。2015 年后组与 2015 年前组之间的 CA 后成本差异为 2573 美元(95% CI,-2336 美元至 7481 美元)。结论我们的研究表明,虽然 CA 费用昂贵,但它可能是一种具有成本效益的房颤治疗方式,因为它能降低相关成本和医疗资源的使用。
A Cost Analysis of Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: A Canadian Pre-Post Study
Background
There is a paucity of Canadian studies using patient-level data to analyze the costs of catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF). We sought to identify the health care resource use, costs, and cost predictors of CA.
Methods
A cost analysis was performed in a population of AF patients treated with CA in Central Zone Nova Scotia from 2010 to 2018. Costs were compared 2 years before ablation (pre-CA) with costs 2 years after (post-CA); the 3-month period post-CA was defined as the treatment window. Costs were also compared according to CA technology defined as before 2015 for patients treated with non-contact force sensing CA and after 2015 for patients treated with contact force sensing CA.
Results
Heart failure hospitalizations, AF-related emergency department visits, acute inpatient admissions, and cardioversions all decreased after ablation. The cost difference post-CA vs pre-CA was CAD$18,869 (95% confidence interval [CI], $15,570-$22,168). This increase in costs was driven by costs incurred during the treatment window, which was $21,439 (95% CI, $20,468-$22,409). After excluding treatment window costs, the mean year 1 post-CA cost was $11,223 (95% CI, $9113-$13,334) and year 2 post-CA cost was $4555 (95% CI, $3145-$5965); both were lower than the pre-CA costs. Costs remained stable over the time frame of the study period, with no influence from new technologies on cost. The post-CA cost difference between the post-2015 and pre-2015 groups was $2573 (95% CI, -$2336 to $7481).
Conclusions
We showed that although CA is expensive, it might be a cost-effective treatment modality for AF because of the associated reduction in costs and health care resource use.