Moussa Mansour1, Edward Karst2, E Kevin Heist3, Nirav Dalal4, Jason H Wasfy3, Douglas L Packer4, Hugh Calkins5, Jeremy N Ruskin3, Srijoy Mahapatra6. 1. Heart Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: mmansour@partners.org. 2. Health Economics Outcomes Research, St. Jude Medical, Sylmar, California. 3. Heart Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 5. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland. 6. Medical Affairs, St. Jude Medical, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare health care costs associated with repeat ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) with health care costs associated with a successful first procedure. BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation has become established as a rhythm control strategy for symptomatic paroxysmal and persistent AF. The economic impact of ablation is not completely understood, and it may be affected by repeat procedures performed for recurrent AF. METHODS: The source of data was the MarketScan (Truven Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan) administrative claims dataset from April 2008 to March 2013, including U.S. patients with private and Medicare supplemental insurance. Patients who underwent an outpatient atrial ablation procedure and a diagnosis of AF were identified. Total health care cost was calculated for 1 year before and after the ablation. Patients were categorized as having undergone a repeat ablation if an additional ablation was performed in the following year. RESULTS: Of 12,027 patients included in the study, repeat ablation was performed in 2,066 (17.2%) within 1 year. Patients with repeat ablation had higher rates of emergency department visits (43.4% vs. 32.2%; < 0.001) and subsequent hospitalization (35.6% vs. 21.5%; p < 0.001), after excluding hospitalizations for the repeat procedure. Total medical cost was higher for patients with repeat ablation ($52,821 vs. $13,412; p < 0.001), and it remained 46% higher even after excluding the cost associated with additional ablations ($19,621 vs. $13,412; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Health care costs are significantly higher for patients with a repeat ablation for AF than for patients with only a single ablation procedure, even though both groups have similar baseline characteristics. The increased costs persist even after excluding the cost of the repeat ablation itself. These results emphasize the economic benefit of procedural success in AF ablation.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare health care costs associated with repeat ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) with health care costs associated with a successful first procedure. BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation has become established as a rhythm control strategy for symptomatic paroxysmal and persistent AF. The economic impact of ablation is not completely understood, and it may be affected by repeat procedures performed for recurrent AF. METHODS: The source of data was the MarketScan (Truven Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan) administrative claims dataset from April 2008 to March 2013, including U.S. patients with private and Medicare supplemental insurance. Patients who underwent an outpatient atrial ablation procedure and a diagnosis of AF were identified. Total health care cost was calculated for 1 year before and after the ablation. Patients were categorized as having undergone a repeat ablation if an additional ablation was performed in the following year. RESULTS: Of 12,027 patients included in the study, repeat ablation was performed in 2,066 (17.2%) within 1 year. Patients with repeat ablation had higher rates of emergency department visits (43.4% vs. 32.2%; < 0.001) and subsequent hospitalization (35.6% vs. 21.5%; p < 0.001), after excluding hospitalizations for the repeat procedure. Total medical cost was higher for patients with repeat ablation ($52,821 vs. $13,412; p < 0.001), and it remained 46% higher even after excluding the cost associated with additional ablations ($19,621 vs. $13,412; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Health care costs are significantly higher for patients with a repeat ablation for AF than for patients with only a single ablation procedure, even though both groups have similar baseline characteristics. The increased costs persist even after excluding the cost of the repeat ablation itself. These results emphasize the economic benefit of procedural success in AF ablation.
Authors: Derek S Chew; Eric Black-Maier; Zak Loring; Peter A Noseworthy; Douglas L Packer; Derek V Exner; Daniel B Mark; Jonathan P Piccini Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2020-03-19
Authors: Suneet Mittal; Dan L Musat; Michael H Hoskins; Julie B Prillinger; Gregory J Roberts; Yelena Nabutovsky; Faisal M Merchant Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: K R Julian Chun; Josep Brugada; Arif Elvan; Laszlo Gellér; Matthias Busch; Alberto Barrera; Richard J Schilling; Matthew R Reynolds; Robert B Hokanson; Reece Holbrook; Benedict Brown; Michael Schlüter; Karl-Heinz Kuck Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-07-27 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Xiaowei Zhao; Ohad Ziv; Reza Mohammadpour; Benjamin Crosby; Walter J Hoyt; Michael W Jenkins; Christopher Snyder; Christine Hendon; Kenneth R Laurita; Andrew M Rollins Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-12-21 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Daniel J Friedman; Michael E Field; Motiur Rahman; Laura Goldstein; Qun Sha; M Sidharth; Rahul Khanna; Jonathan P Piccini Journal: Heart Rhythm O2 Date: 2020-12-15