Explore the vast range of titles available.

IntroductionPersistent atrial fibrillation (PersAF) presents a significant clinical and economic burden and is associated with poorer outcomes after catheter ablation compared with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). Pulsed field ablation (PFA) has emerged as a new form of energy modality for AF treatment. Sphere-9 is a novel dual-energy large-focal lattice tip (LFLT) catheter that is also capable of high-density mapping. The study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Sphere-9 catheter versus conventional radiofrequency (RF ablation for the treatment of PersAF in the English National Health Service (NHS) setting.MethodsIndividual patient data from the SPHERE Per-AF randomised controlled trial were used to estimate efficacy, safety and resource utilisation parameters in symptomatic PersAF patients. The cost-effectiveness model consisted of a hybrid decision tree (1-year time horizon) and a Markov model with 3-month cycle length (lifetime time horizon, 40 years) and was developed from the perspective of the English NHS. Unit costs were derived from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guideline for AF diagnosis and management (NG196) and NHS national cost collection data. Health benefits were expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and all benefits and costs were discounted at 3.5% per year in line with NICE requirements.ResultsLFLT ablation was found to be dominant compared with RF, since it was less costly and it produced greater health outcomes. LFLT was associated with an average cost of £15 433 and 8.26 QALYs per patient, compared with £20 861 and 8.20 QALYs for RF ablation. Results remained robust across all sensitivity and scenario analyses.DiscussionThe Sphere-9 catheter is a cost-saving strategy for treating patients with PersAF compared with conventional RF ablation. Given the growing burden of AF and limited healthcare resources, Sphere-9 presents a valuable option for improving patient outcomes while optimising NHS resource allocation.

IntroductionThree recent randomised controlled trials have demonstrated that pulmonary vein isolation as an initial rhythm control strategy with cryoablation reduces atrial arrhythmia recurrence in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) compared with antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line cryoablation compared with first-line AADs for treating symptomatic PAF in an English National Health Service (NHS) setting.MethodsIndividual patient-level data from 703 participants with PAF enrolled into Cryo-FIRST (Catheter Cryoablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug as First-Line Therapy of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation), STOP AF First (Cryoballoon Catheter Ablation in an Antiarrhythmic Drug Naive Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation) and EARLY-AF (Early Aggressive Invasive Intervention for Atrial Fibrillation) were used to derive the parameters applied in the cost-effectiveness model (CEM). The CEM comprised a hybrid decision tree and Markov structure. The decision tree had a 1-year time horizon and was used to inform the initial health state allocation in the first cycle of the Markov model (40-year time horizon; 3-month cycle length). Health benefits were expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per year. Model outcomes were generated using probabilistic sensitivity analysis.ResultsThe results estimated that cryoablation would yield more QALYs (+0.17) and higher costs (+£641) per patient over a lifetime than AADs. This produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £3783 per QALY gained. Independent of initial treatment, individuals were expected to receive ~1.2 ablations over a lifetime. There was a 45% relative reduction in time spent in AF health states for those initially treated with cryoablation.DiscussionAF rhythm control with first-line cryoablation is cost effective compared with first-line AADs in an English NHS setting.

Background and Aims Symptom control for atrial fibrillation can be achieved by catheter ablation or drug therapy. We assessed the cost effectiveness of a novel streamlined atrial fibrillation cryoballoon ablation protocol (AVATAR) compared with optimised antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy and a conventional catheter ablation protocol, from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Methods Data from the AVATAR study were assessed to determine the cost effectiveness of the three protocols in a two-step process. In the first stage, statistical analysis of clinical efficacy outcomes was conducted considering either a three-way comparison (AVATAR vs. conventional ablation vs. optimised AAD therapies) or a two-way comparison (pooled ablation protocol data vs. optimised AAD therapies). In the second stage, models assessed the cost effectiveness of the protocols. Costs and some of the clinical inputs in the models were derived from within-trial cost analysis and published literature. The remaining inputs were derived from clinical experts. Results No significant differences between the ablation protocols were found for any of the clinical outcomes used in the model. Results of a within-trial cost analysis show that AVATAR is cost-saving (£1279 per patient) compared with the conventional ablation protocol. When compared with optimised AAD therapies, AVATAR (pooled conventional and AVATAR ablation protocols efficacy) was found to be more costly while offering improved clinical benefits. Over a lifetime time horizon, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of AVATAR was estimated as £21,046 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (95% credible interval £7086–£71,718). Conclusions The AVATAR streamlined protocol is likely to be a cost-effective option versus both conventional ablation and optimised AAD therapy in the UK NHS healthcare setting.