Open access

Research Article

10 May 2022

Atrial fibrillation ablation with advanced radiofrequency catheter versus second-generation cryoballoon catheter

Authors: Adam E Berman, Sonia Maccioni, and Rahul Khanna [email protected]Author Info & Affiliations

Publication: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

Volume 11, Number 9

https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2021-0170

PDF OtherFormats

Abstract

Aim: To compare cost and readmissions among atrial fibrillation (AF) patients undergoing ablation using the THERMOCOOL SMARTTOUCH™ SF (STSF) radiofrequency catheter versus the Arctic Front Advance™ (AFA) cryoballoon catheter. Patients & methods: The Premier Healthcare Database was used for the study purposes. Propensity score matching was used to match patients in the two groups. Costs and readmissions were assessed. A regression model was used for outcome assessment. Results: After propensity matching, 2767 patients were identified in each of the STSF and AFA cohorts. In the matched cohort, STSF patients had significantly lower supply costs than AFA patients. STSF patients had significantly lower 4–12-month AF-related inpatient readmissions compared with AFA patients (2.58% vs 3.99%; p = 0.0402). Costs of care summing index procedure and readmission costs were also lower for the STSF patients versus AFA patients. Conclusions: Patients who underwent AF ablation using the STSF catheter versus the AFA catheter had lower cost and AF-related readmissions.

Supplementary Material

File (supplemental figure 1.jpg)

Download
206.29 KB

File (supplementary tables.docx)

Download
196.61 KB

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

1.

Wyndham CR. Atrial fibrillation: the most common arrhythmia. Tex. Heart Inst. J. 27(3), 257–267 (2000).

2.

Naccarelli GV, Varker H, Lin J, Schulman KL. Increasing prevalence of atrial fibrillation and flutter in the United States. Am. J. Cardiol. 104(11), 1534–1539 (2009).

3.

Wu EQ, Birnbaum HG, Mareva M et al. Economic burden and co-morbidities of atrial fibrillation in a privately insured population. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 21(10), 1693–1699 (2005).

4.

Benjamin EJ, Wolf PA, D'agostino RB, Silbershatz H, Kannel WB, Levy D. Impact of atrial fibrillation on the risk of death: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation 98(10), 946–952 (1998).

5.

Coyne KS, Paramore C, Grandy S, Mercader M, Reynolds M, Zimetbaum P. Assessing the direct costs of treating nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in the United States. Value Health 9(5), 348–356 (2006).

6.

Calkins H, Hindricks G, Cappato R et al. 2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: executive summary. Europace 20(1), 157–208 (2018).

7.

January CT, Wann LS, Calkins H et al. 2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 74(1), 104–132 (2019).

8.

Kirchhof P, Benussi S, Kotecha D et al. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with EACTS. Europace 18(11), 1609–1678 (2016).

9.

Senoo K, Lau YC, Lip GY. Updated NICE guideline: management of atrial fibrillation (2014). Expert Rev. Cardiovasc. Ther. 12(9), 1037–1040 (2014).

10.

Poole JE, Bahnson TD, Monahan KH et al. Recurrence of atrial fibrillation after catheter ablation or antiarrhythmic drug therapy in the CABANA trial. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 75(25), 3105–3118 (2020).

11.

Packer DL, Mark DB, Robb RA et al. Catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic drug therapy for atrial fibrillation (CABANA) trial: study rationale and design. Am. Heart J. 199, 192–199 (2018).

12.

Packer DL, Mark DB, Robb RA et al. Effect of catheter ablation vs antiarrhythmic drug therapy on mortality, stroke, bleeding, and cardiac arrest among patients with atrial fibrillation: The CABANA randomized clinical trial. JAMA 321(13), 1261–1274 (2019).

13.

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. 2(4), 362–369 (2009).

14.

Peichl P, Kautzner J. Advances in irrigated tip catheter technology for treatment of cardiac arrhythmias. Recent Pat. Cardiovasc. Drug Discov. 8(1), 10–16 (2013).

15.

Plenge T, Van Den Bruck JH, Lüker J, Sultan A, Steven D. Porous tip contact force-sensing catheters for pulmonary vein isolation: performance in a clinical routine setting. J. Interv. Card Electrophysiol. 57(2), 251–259 (2020).

• Demonstrated shorter ablation time and lower irrigation fluid delivery with the SMARTTOUCH™ SF catheter versus the SmartTouch catheter.

16.

Andrade JG, Champagne J, Dubuc M et al. Cryoballoon or radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation assessed by continuous monitoring: a randomized clinical trial. Circulation 140(22), 1779–1788 (2019).

17.

Maurer T, Rottner L, Makimoto H, Reissmann B et al. The best of two worlds? Pulmonary vein isolation using a novel radiofrequency ablation catheter incorporating contact force sensing technology and 56-hole porous tip irrigation. Clinical Research in Cardiology 107(11), 1003–1012 (2018).

• Total irrigation fluid delivery was shown to reduce by 51.7% with the use of the SMARTTOUCH™ SF catheter as compared to the ST catheter among patients with drug-refractory atrial fibrillation.

18.

Costea A, Goldstein L, Maccioni S, Kalsekar I, Khanna R. Real-world outcomes comparison among adults with atrial fibrillation undergoing catheter ablation with a contact force porous tip catheter versus a second-generation cryoballoon catheter: a retrospective analysis of multihospital US database. BMJ Open 10(8), e035499 (2020).

•• Significantly lower procedure cost and supply cost were observed for patients with atrial fibrillation treated with the SMARTTOUCH™ SF catheter versus the Arctic Front Advance™ catheter.

19.

Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med. Care 36(1), 8–27 (1998).

20.

Lip GY, Nieuwlaat R, Pisters R, Lane DA, Crijns HJ. Refining clinical risk stratification for predicting stroke and thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation using a novel risk factor-based approach: the euro heart survey on atrial fibrillation. Chest 137(2), 263–272 (2010).

21.

Hunter TD, Palli SR, Rizzo JA. Cost comparison of radiofrequency catheter ablation versus cryoablation for atrial fibrillation in hospitals using both technologies. J. Med. Econ. 19(10), 959–964 (2016).

•• Inpatient and outpatient costs were reported to be higher for patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing cryoablation versus radiofrequency ablation.

22.

Mandell J, Amico F, Parekh S, Snow J, Germano J, Cohen TJ. Early experience with the cryoablation balloon procedure for the treatment of atrial fibrillation by an experienced radiofrequency catheter ablation center. J. Invasive Cardiol. 25(6), 288–292 (2013).

23.

Ming J, Wei Y, Sun H et al. Cost-effectiveness of cryoballoon ablation versus radiofrequency ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in China: results based on real-world data. Value Health 22(8), 863–870 (2019).

24.

Khullar D, Bond AM, Schpero WL. COVID-19 and the financial health of US hospitals. JAMA 323(21), 2127 (2020).

25.

Sorensen SK, Johannessen A, Worck R, Hansen ML, Hansen J. Radiofrequency Versus cryoballoon catheter ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: durability of pulmonary vein isolation and effect on atrial fibrillation burden: The RACE-AF randomized controlled trial. Circ. Arrhythm. Electrophysiol. 14(5), e009573 (2021).

26.

Hussein A, Das M, Riva S et al. Use of ablation index-guided ablation results in high rates of durable pulmonary vein isolation and freedom from arrhythmia in persistent atrial fibrillation patients: The PRAISE Study results. Circ. Arrhythm. Electrophysiol. 11(9), e006576 (2018).

27.

Pranata R, Vania R, Huang I. Ablation-index guided versus conventional contact-force guided ablation in pulmonary vein isolation - systematic review and meta-analysis. Indian Pacing Electrophysiol. J. 19(4), 155–160 (2019).

• Radiofrequency ablation guided by the Ablation Index resulted in a significantly lower incidence of atrial fibrillation/atrial tachycardia/atrial flutter, shorter fluoroscopy time and total ablation time compared with conventional ablation.

28.

Hussein A, Gupta D, De Potter T et al. Treatment of atrial fibrillation using ablation index-guided contact force ablation: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison to cryoballoon ablation. Adv. Ther. 37(2), 785–799 (2020).

29.

Gupta D, Potter T, Disher T et al. Comparative effectiveness of catheter ablation devices in the treatment of atrial fibrillation: a network meta-analysis. J. Comp. Eff Res. 9(2), 115–126 (2020).

30.

Nanda A, Kabra R. Racial differences in atrial fibrillation epidemiology, management, and outcomes. Curr. Treat. Options Cardiovasc. Med. 21(12), 85 (2019).

31.

Eberly LA, Garg L, Yang L et al. Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in management of incident paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. JAMA Netw. Open 4(2), e210247 (2021).

32.

Patel N, Deshmukh A, Thakkar B et al. Gender, race, and health insurance status in patients undergoing catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. Am. J. Cardiol. 117(7), 1117–1126 (2016).

33.

Shah RU, Freeman JV, Shilane D, Wang PJ, Go AS, Hlatky MA. Procedural complications, rehospitalizations, and repeat procedures after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 59(2), 143–149 (2012).

|