Tina D Hunter1, Swetha R Palli1, John A Rizzo2. 1. a CTI Clinical Trial and Consulting Services, Inc. , Cincinnati , OH , USA ; 2. b Stony Brook University , Stony Brook , NY , USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the cost of radiofrequency (RF) ablation vs cryoablation (Cryo) for atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used 2013-2014 records from the Premier Healthcare Database for adults with AF catheter ablation. Exclusions included non-AF ablation, surgical ablation, valve replacement or repair, or cardiac implant. Hospitals were required to perform ≥20 procedures using each technology, with the technology identifiable in at least 90% of cases. The primary endpoint was total variable visit cost, modeled separately for inpatient and outpatient visits, and adjusted for patient and hospital characteristics. Technology was categorized as RF or Cryo, with dual-technology procedures classified as Cryo. The Cryo cohort was further divided into Cryo only and Cryo with RF for sensitivity analyses. A composite adverse event endpoint was also compared. RESULTS: A total of 1261 RF procedures and 1276 Cryo procedures, of which 500 also used RF, met study criteria. RF patients were slightly older and sicker, and had more cardiovascular disease and additional arrhythmias. Adjusted inpatient costs were $2803 (30.0%) higher for Cryo, and adjusted outpatient costs were $2215 (19.5%) higher. Sensitivity models showed higher costs in both Cryo sub-groups compared with RF. Procedural complication rates were not significantly different between cohorts (p-values: 0.4888 inpatient, 0.5072 outpatient). CONCLUSION: AF ablation using RF results in significantly lower costs compared with Cryo, despite an RF population with more cardiovascular disease. This saving cannot be attributed to a difference in complication rates.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the cost of radiofrequency (RF) ablation vs cryoablation (Cryo) for atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used 2013-2014 records from the Premier Healthcare Database for adults with AF catheter ablation. Exclusions included non-AF ablation, surgical ablation, valve replacement or repair, or cardiac implant. Hospitals were required to perform ≥20 procedures using each technology, with the technology identifiable in at least 90% of cases. The primary endpoint was total variable visit cost, modeled separately for inpatient and outpatient visits, and adjusted for patient and hospital characteristics. Technology was categorized as RF or Cryo, with dual-technology procedures classified as Cryo. The Cryo cohort was further divided into Cryo only and Cryo with RF for sensitivity analyses. A composite adverse event endpoint was also compared. RESULTS: A total of 1261 RF procedures and 1276 Cryo procedures, of which 500 also used RF, met study criteria. RF patients were slightly older and sicker, and had more cardiovascular disease and additional arrhythmias. Adjusted inpatient costs were $2803 (30.0%) higher for Cryo, and adjusted outpatient costs were $2215 (19.5%) higher. Sensitivity models showed higher costs in both Cryo sub-groups compared with RF. Procedural complication rates were not significantly different between cohorts (p-values: 0.4888 inpatient, 0.5072 outpatient). CONCLUSION:AF ablation using RF results in significantly lower costs compared with Cryo, despite an RF population with more cardiovascular disease. This saving cannot be attributed to a difference in complication rates.
Authors: Derek S Chew; Zak Loring; Jatin Anand; Marat Fudim; Angela Lowenstern; Jennifer A Rymer; Kristin E D Weimer; Brett D Atwater; Adam D DeVore; Derek V Exner; Peter A Noseworthy; Clyde W Yancy; Daniel B Mark; Jonathan P Piccini Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2020-12-07