Economic impact of atrial fibrillation ablation with radiofrequency contact force catheter versus cryoballoon catheter. (21st December 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pollak, Scott J; Goldstein, Laura; Daskiran, Mehmet; Kalsekar, Iftekhar; Khanna, Rahul
• Is Part Of: Journal of comparative effectiveness research. Volume 8:Number 4(2019)
• Page Start: 251
• Page End: 264
• Publication Date: 2018-12-21
• Subjects: atrial fibrillation -- catheter ablation -- contact force -- cryoballoon -- radiofrequency; Medical care -- Research -- Periodicals; Medical care -- Research -- Evaluation -- Periodicals; Medical care -- Decision making -- Periodicals; Evidence-based medicine -- Periodicals; Medicine, Comparative -- Periodicals; 362.1072
• DOI: 10.2217/cer-2018-0112
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2042-6305

Abstract

Aim: To compare health utilization among atrial fibrillation (AF) patients undergoing ablation with a contact force-sensing (CF) catheter versus a cryoballoon (CB) catheter.Methods: AF patients who underwent ablation using the CF catheter (THERMOCOOL SMARTTOUCH ® catheter) or CB catheter (Arctic Front™/Arctic Front Advance™ catheter) were identified from the Premier Healthcare database. Propensity score analyses were used to evaluate cost, length of stay and readmissions.Results: The CF catheter (n = 1409) was associated with significantly lower total (∼7%) and supply (∼13%) costs and a significantly lower likelihood of 4–12 month all-cause and CV-related readmission compared with the CB catheter (n = 2306).Conclusion: Differential health utilization outcomes are associated with the CF catheter versus the CB catheter in AF ablation.