Cost, efficiency, and outcomes of pulsed field ablation vs thermal ablation for atrial fibrillation: A real-world study

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: With the exponential growth of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF), there is increasing interest in associated health care costs. Pulsed field ablation (PFA) using a single-shot pentaspline multielectrode catheter has been shown to be safe and effective for AF ablation, but its cost efficiency compared to conventional thermal ablation modalities (cryoballoon [CB] or radiofrequency [RF]) has not been evaluated. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare cost, efficiency, effectiveness, and safety between PFA, CB, and RF for AF ablation. METHODS: We studied 707 consecutive patients (PFA: 208 [46.0%]; CB: 325 [29.4%]; RF: 174 [24.6%]) undergoing first-time AF ablation. Individual procedural costs were calculated, including equipment, laboratory use, and hospital stay, and compared between ablation modalities, as were effectiveness and safety. RESULTS: Skin-to-skin times and catheter laboratory times were significantly shorter with PFA (68 and 102 minutes, respectively) than with CB (91 and 122 minutes) and RF (89 and 123 minutes) (P < .001). General anesthesia use differed across modalities (PFA 100%; CB 10.2%; RF 61.5%) (P < .001). Major complications occurred in 1% of cases, with no significant differences between modalities. Shorter procedural times resulted in lower staffing and laboratory costs with PFA, but these savings were offset by substantially higher equipment costs, resulting in higher overall median costs with PFA (£10,010) than with CB (£8106) and RF (£8949) (P < .001). CONCLUSION: In this contemporary real-world study of the 3 major AF ablation modalities used concurrently, PFA had shorter skin-to-skin and catheter laboratory times than did CB and RF, with similarly low rates of complications. However, PFA procedures were considerably more expensive, largely because of higher equipment cost.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.