BACKGROUND: The pursuit of a clearer understanding of the pathogenesis of atrial fibrillation (AFib) and the development of new technology has resulted in a surge of interest in the surgical ablation for AFib. Here, we report our 8-year experience in the surgical treatment and management of AFib alongside, evaluating the cost-effectiveness in southern Mainland China over a 1-year follow-up. METHODS: Data of 3,068 patients from March 2011 through June 2019 was retrospectively extracted from The Provincial National Cardiac Database of Xiangya Second Hospital. The activities considered (and costs calculated) were outpatient consultations, hospital admissions, and drug treatment. Quality of life (QoL) questionnaires were also carried out to assess whether concomitant AFib correction procedures increase risk in patients, or improve patient's QoL. RESULTS: A total of 3,068 patients completed the questionnaires at a minimum of one time-point during the follow-up. The total cost was combined to obtain incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The total costs of the AFib catheter ablation group were remarkably higher compared to surgery as usual group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $76,513,227 (¥542,287,667) per QALY, with an acceptability line graph for cost at 43%. CONCLUSIONS: AFib is an extraordinarily costly and worrisome public health problem. Precision medicine is vital as it provides a platform for the clinical translation of targeted interventions that are designed to help treat and prevent AFib. Thus, to improve the QoL expectancy outcome(s), both therapeutic and surgical interventions should be aimed at addressing the underlying heart disease rather than restoring sinus rhythm. 2020 Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: The pursuit of a clearer understanding of the pathogenesis of atrial fibrillation (AFib) and the development of new technology has resulted in a surge of interest in the surgical ablation for AFib. Here, we report our 8-year experience in the surgical treatment and management of AFib alongside, evaluating the cost-effectiveness in southern Mainland China over a 1-year follow-up. METHODS: Data of 3,068 patients from March 2011 through June 2019 was retrospectively extracted from The Provincial National Cardiac Database of Xiangya Second Hospital. The activities considered (and costs calculated) were outpatient consultations, hospital admissions, and drug treatment. Quality of life (QoL) questionnaires were also carried out to assess whether concomitant AFib correction procedures increase risk in patients, or improve patient's QoL. RESULTS: A total of 3,068 patients completed the questionnaires at a minimum of one time-point during the follow-up. The total cost was combined to obtain incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The total costs of the AFib catheter ablation group were remarkably higher compared to surgery as usual group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $76,513,227 (¥542,287,667) per QALY, with an acceptability line graph for cost at 43%. CONCLUSIONS: AFib is an extraordinarily costly and worrisome public health problem. Precision medicine is vital as it provides a platform for the clinical translation of targeted interventions that are designed to help treat and prevent AFib. Thus, to improve the QoL expectancy outcome(s), both therapeutic and surgical interventions should be aimed at addressing the underlying heart disease rather than restoring sinus rhythm. 2020 Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
Atrial fibrillation (AFib); Maze procedure; cost-effectiveness; quality-adjusted life year (QALY); surgical ablation
Authors: Vinay Badhwar; J Scott Rankin; Ralph J Damiano; A Marc Gillinov; Faisal G Bakaeen; James R Edgerton; Jonathan M Philpott; Patrick M McCarthy; Steven F Bolling; Harold G Roberts; Vinod H Thourani; Rakesh M Suri; Richard J Shemin; Scott Firestone; Niv Ad Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: George Doukas; Nilesh J Samani; Christos Alexiou; Mehmet Oc; Derek T Chin; Peter G Stafford; Leong L Ng; Tomasz J Spyt Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-11-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Louise S Jenkins; Michael Brodsky; Eleanor Schron; Mina Chung; Thomas Rocco; Ellis Lader; Martha Constantine; Robert Sheppard; Donald Holmes; Donna Mateski; Liz Floden; Marilyn Prasun; H Leon Greene; Lynn Shemanski Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Mark D Huffman; Kunal N Karmali; Mark A Berendsen; Adin-Cristian Andrei; Jane Kruse; Patrick M McCarthy; S C Malaisrie Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2016-08-22
Authors: Renate B Schnabel; Xiaoyan Yin; Philimon Gona; Martin G Larson; Alexa S Beiser; David D McManus; Christopher Newton-Cheh; Steven A Lubitz; Jared W Magnani; Patrick T Ellinor; Sudha Seshadri; Philip A Wolf; Ramachandran S Vasan; Emelia J Benjamin; Daniel Levy Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-05-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Alvaro Alonso; Bouwe P Krijthe; Thor Aspelund; Katherine A Stepas; Michael J Pencina; Carlee B Moser; Moritz F Sinner; Nona Sotoodehnia; João D Fontes; A Cecile J W Janssens; Richard A Kronmal; Jared W Magnani; Jacqueline C Witteman; Alanna M Chamberlain; Steven A Lubitz; Renate B Schnabel; Sunil K Agarwal; David D McManus; Patrick T Ellinor; Martin G Larson; Gregory L Burke; Lenore J Launer; Albert Hofman; Daniel Levy; John S Gottdiener; Stefan Kääb; David Couper; Tamara B Harris; Elsayed Z Soliman; Bruno H C Stricker; Vilmundur Gudnason; Susan R Heckbert; Emelia J Benjamin Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2013-03-18 Impact factor: 5.501