Cargando…

Cost-effectiveness of Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation: A Canadian Perspective

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) affects approximately 350,000 Canadians and has an estimated annual economic burden exceeding $800 million dollars. Anti-arrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy and catheter ablation (CA) are the two common treatments for paroxysmal AF. However, the upfront costs of CA are...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Khaykin, Yaariv, Mallow, Peter J., Rizzo, John A., Verma, Atul, Chun, Lauren, Olesovsky, Shelby, Reynolds, Matthew R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Columbia Data Analytics, LLC 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10471365/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37662659
http://dx.doi.org/10.36469/9837
_version_ 1785099834530725888
author Khaykin, Yaariv
Mallow, Peter J.
Rizzo, John A.
Verma, Atul
Chun, Lauren
Olesovsky, Shelby
Reynolds, Matthew R.
author_facet Khaykin, Yaariv
Mallow, Peter J.
Rizzo, John A.
Verma, Atul
Chun, Lauren
Olesovsky, Shelby
Reynolds, Matthew R.
author_sort Khaykin, Yaariv
collection PubMed
description Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) affects approximately 350,000 Canadians and has an estimated annual economic burden exceeding $800 million dollars. Anti-arrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy and catheter ablation (CA) are the two common treatments for paroxysmal AF. However, the upfront costs of CA are quite substantial. Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of CA compared to AAD for AF based on community practice. Methods: A Markov simulation model was developed for a hypothetical cohort of 55-year-old patients with paroxysmal AF and a low stroke risk. Patients received either CA or AAD. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were computed over lifetime, 10-year, and 5-year time horizons. Model inputs were obtained from a large, prospectively collected, single-center Canadian registry and augmented with the published literature, using Canadian cost estimates for disease states. Threshold values of $25,000, $50,000, and $100,000 per QALY, respectively, were used to determine cost-effectiveness. All costs were expressed in 2012 Canadian dollars. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for CA versus AAD therapy was $1,228, $22,879, and $63,647 for the lifetime, 10-year, and 5-year time horizons, respectively. Over a lifetime horizon, the probability of achieving cost-effectiveness was 100% for all 3 cost per QALY thresholds. The 10-year probability of achieving cost-effectiveness was 74%, 100%, and 100% at the $25,000, $50,000, and $100,000 thresholds, respectively. The 5-year probability of achieving cost-effectiveness was 0%, 0.9%, and 100% at the 3 cost per QALY thresholds. Results were most sensitive to time horizon, probability of repeat AF ablation, and stroke rate. Conclusions: From the perspective of the Canadian Healthcare system, CA is a potentially cost-effective treatment compared to AAD therapy in a low stroke risk population using real-world data when examining a time horizon of greater than 5 years.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10471365
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Columbia Data Analytics, LLC
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104713652023-09-01 Cost-effectiveness of Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation: A Canadian Perspective Khaykin, Yaariv Mallow, Peter J. Rizzo, John A. Verma, Atul Chun, Lauren Olesovsky, Shelby Reynolds, Matthew R. J Health Econ Outcomes Res Cardiovascular Conditions Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) affects approximately 350,000 Canadians and has an estimated annual economic burden exceeding $800 million dollars. Anti-arrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy and catheter ablation (CA) are the two common treatments for paroxysmal AF. However, the upfront costs of CA are quite substantial. Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of CA compared to AAD for AF based on community practice. Methods: A Markov simulation model was developed for a hypothetical cohort of 55-year-old patients with paroxysmal AF and a low stroke risk. Patients received either CA or AAD. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were computed over lifetime, 10-year, and 5-year time horizons. Model inputs were obtained from a large, prospectively collected, single-center Canadian registry and augmented with the published literature, using Canadian cost estimates for disease states. Threshold values of $25,000, $50,000, and $100,000 per QALY, respectively, were used to determine cost-effectiveness. All costs were expressed in 2012 Canadian dollars. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for CA versus AAD therapy was $1,228, $22,879, and $63,647 for the lifetime, 10-year, and 5-year time horizons, respectively. Over a lifetime horizon, the probability of achieving cost-effectiveness was 100% for all 3 cost per QALY thresholds. The 10-year probability of achieving cost-effectiveness was 74%, 100%, and 100% at the $25,000, $50,000, and $100,000 thresholds, respectively. The 5-year probability of achieving cost-effectiveness was 0%, 0.9%, and 100% at the 3 cost per QALY thresholds. Results were most sensitive to time horizon, probability of repeat AF ablation, and stroke rate. Conclusions: From the perspective of the Canadian Healthcare system, CA is a potentially cost-effective treatment compared to AAD therapy in a low stroke risk population using real-world data when examining a time horizon of greater than 5 years. Columbia Data Analytics, LLC 2016-10-26 /pmc/articles/PMC10471365/ /pubmed/37662659 http://dx.doi.org/10.36469/9837 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Cardiovascular Conditions
Khaykin, Yaariv
Mallow, Peter J.
Rizzo, John A.
Verma, Atul
Chun, Lauren
Olesovsky, Shelby
Reynolds, Matthew R.
Cost-effectiveness of Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation: A Canadian Perspective
title Cost-effectiveness of Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation: A Canadian Perspective
title_full Cost-effectiveness of Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation: A Canadian Perspective
title_fullStr Cost-effectiveness of Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation: A Canadian Perspective
title_full_unstemmed Cost-effectiveness of Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation: A Canadian Perspective
title_short Cost-effectiveness of Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation: A Canadian Perspective
title_sort cost-effectiveness of catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic drug therapy for the treatment of atrial fibrillation: a canadian perspective
topic Cardiovascular Conditions
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10471365/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37662659
http://dx.doi.org/10.36469/9837
work_keys_str_mv AT khaykinyaariv costeffectivenessofcatheterablationversusantiarrhythmicdrugtherapyforthetreatmentofatrialfibrillationacanadianperspective
AT mallowpeterj costeffectivenessofcatheterablationversusantiarrhythmicdrugtherapyforthetreatmentofatrialfibrillationacanadianperspective
AT rizzojohna costeffectivenessofcatheterablationversusantiarrhythmicdrugtherapyforthetreatmentofatrialfibrillationacanadianperspective
AT vermaatul costeffectivenessofcatheterablationversusantiarrhythmicdrugtherapyforthetreatmentofatrialfibrillationacanadianperspective
AT chunlauren costeffectivenessofcatheterablationversusantiarrhythmicdrugtherapyforthetreatmentofatrialfibrillationacanadianperspective
AT olesovskyshelby costeffectivenessofcatheterablationversusantiarrhythmicdrugtherapyforthetreatmentofatrialfibrillationacanadianperspective
AT reynoldsmatthewr costeffectivenessofcatheterablationversusantiarrhythmicdrugtherapyforthetreatmentofatrialfibrillationacanadianperspective