The cost-utility of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and critical appraisal of economic evaluations

BMC Cardiovascular Disorders

Carl Devos¹  Hans Van Brabandt¹  Mattias Neyt¹ 

[1] Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), Doorbuilding Kruidtuinlaan 55, B-1000, Brussels, Belgium

关键词: Review;    Cost-Benefit analysis;    Catheter ablation;    Atrial fibrillation;   

Others  :  856844
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2261-13-78

 received in 2013-04-08, accepted in 2013-09-18,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

A health technology assessment (HTA) of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (CA-AF) was commissioned by the Belgian government and performed by the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE). In this context, a systematic review of the economic literature was performed to assess the procedure’s value for money.

Methods

A systematic search for economic literature about the cost-effectiveness of CA-AF was performed by consulting various databases: CRD (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) HTA and CDSR (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) Technology Assessment, websites of HTA institutes, NHS EED (NHS Economic Evaluation Database), Medline (OVID), EMBASE and EconLit. No time or language restrictions were imposed and pre-defined selection criteria were used. The two-step selection procedure was performed by two persons. References of the selected studies were checked for additional relevant citations.

Results

Out of 697 references, seven relevant studies were selected. Based on current evidence and economic considerations, the rationale to support catheter ablation as first-line treatment was lacking.

The economic evaluations for second-line catheter ablation included several assumptions that make the results rather optimistic or subject to large uncertainty. First, overall AAD (antiarrhythmic drugs) use after ablation was higher in reality than assumed in the economic evaluations, which had its impact on costs and effects. Second, several models focused on the impact of ablation on preventing stroke. This was questionable because there was no direct hard evidence from RCTs to support this assumption. An indirect impact through stroke on mortality should also be regarded with caution. Furthermore, all models included an impact on quality of life (QoL)/utility and assumed a long-term impact. Unfortunately, none of the RCTs measured QoL with a generic utility instrument and information on the long-term impact on both mortality and QoL was lacking.

Conclusions

Catheter ablation is associated with high initial costs and may lead to life-threatening complications. Its cost-effectiveness depends on the belief one places on the impact on utility and/or preventing stroke, and the duration of these effects. Having no hard evidence for these important variables is rather troublesome. Although the technique is widely spread, the scientific evidence is insufficient for drawing conclusions about the intervention’s cost-effectiveness.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Neyt et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Camm AJ, Kirchhof P, Lip GYH, Schotten U, Savelieva I, Ernst S, Van Gelder IC, Al-Attar N, Hindricks G, Prendergast B, et al.: Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation. Europace 2010, 12(10):1360-1420.
• [2]Lafuente-Lafuente C, Mouly S, Longas-Tejero MA, Bergmann JF: Antiarrhythmics for maintaining sinus rhythm after cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007, 4:CD005049.
• [3]de Denus S, Sanoski CA, Carlsson J, Opolski G, Spinler SA: Rate vs rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med 2005, 165(3):258-262.
• [4]Testa L, Biondi-Zoccai GG, Dello Russo A, Bellocci F, Andreotti F, Crea F: Rate-control vs. rhythm-control in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis. Eur Heart J 2005, 26(19):2000-2006.
• [5]Van Brabandt H, Neyt M, Devos C: Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE); 2012. KCE Report 184C
• [6]Assasi N, Blackhouse G, Xie F, Gaebel K, Robertson D, Hopkins R, Healey J, Roy D, Goeree R: Ablation procedures for rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation: clinical and cost-effectiveness analyses. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH); 2010.
• [7]Chan PS, Vijan S, Morady F, Oral H: Cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006, 47(12):2513-2520.
• [8]Eckard N, Davidson T, Walfridsson H, Levin LA: Cost-effectiveness of catheter ablation treatment for patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation. J Atr Fibrillation 2009, 1(8):461-470.
• [9]McKenna C, Palmer S, Rodgers M, Chambers D, Hawkins N, Golder S, van Hout S, Pepper C, Todd D, Woolacott N: Cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency catheter ablation for the treatment of atrial fibrillation in the United Kingdom. Heart 2009, 95(7):542-549.
• [10]Ollendorf D, Silverstein M, Bobo T, Pearson S: Atrial fibrillation management options. Boston: Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER); 2010.
• [11]Reynolds MR, Zimetbaum P, Josephson ME, Ellis E, Danilov T, Cohen DJ: Cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency catheter ablation compared with antiarrhythmic drug therapy for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2009, 2(4):362-369.
• [12]Rodgers M, McKenna C, Palmer S, Chambers D, Van Hout S, Golder S, Pepper C, Todd D, Woolacott N: Curative catheter ablation in atrial fibrillation and typical atrial flutter: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2008., 12(34) iii-iv, xi-xiii, 1–198
• [13]Bonanno C, Paccanaro M, La Vecchia L, Ometto R, Fontanelli A: Efficacy and safety of catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic drugs for atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) 2010, 11(6):408-418.
• [14]Parkash R, Tang AS, Sapp JL, Wells G: Approach to the catheter ablation technique of paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2011, 22(7):729-738.
• [15]Blomström Lundqvist C, Liliemark J, Eckerlund I: Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (update). Stockholm: The Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment (SBU); 2010.
• [16]van Brabandt H, Neyt M, Devos C: Effectiveness of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in Belgian practice: a cohort analysis on administrative data. Europace 2013, 15(5):663-668.
• [17]Marshall DA, Levy AR, Vidaillet H, Fenwick E, Slee A, Blackhouse G, Greene HL, Wyse DG, Nichol G, O'Brien BJ: Cost-effectiveness of rhythm versus rate control in atrial fibrillation. Ann Intern Med 2004, 141(9):653-661.
• [18]Neyt M, Van Brabandt H: The importance of the comparator in economic evaluations: working on the efficiency frontier. Pharmacoeconomics 2011, 29(11):913-916.
• [19]Cappato R, Calkins H, Chen SA, Davies W, Iesaka Y, Kalman J, Kim YH, Klein G, Packer D, Skanes A: Worldwide survey on the methods, efficacy, and safety of catheter ablation for human atrial fibrillation. Circulation 2005, 111(9):1100-1105.
• [20]Reynolds MR, Lavelle T, Essebag V, Cohen DJ, Zimetbaum P: Influence of age, sex, and atrial fibrillation recurrence on quality of life outcomes in a population of patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation: the Fibrillation Registry Assessing Costs, Therapies, Adverse events and Lifestyle (FRACTAL) study. Am Heart J 2006, 152(6):1097-1103.
• [21]Jais P, Cauchemez B, Macle L, Daoud E, Khairy P, Subbiah R, Hocini M, Extramiana F, Sacher F, Bordachar P, et al.: Catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic drugs for atrial fibrillation: the A4 study. Circulation 2008, 118(24):2498-2505.
• [22]Wazni O, Wilkoff B, Saliba W: Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2011, 365(24):2296-2304.