Suppr超能文献

心房颤动和典型心房扑动的根治性导管消融术:系统评价与经济评估

Curative catheter ablation in atrial fibrillation and typical atrial flutter: systematic review and economic evaluation.

作者信息

Rodgers M, McKenna C, Palmer S, Chambers D, Van Hout S, Golder S, Pepper C, Todd D, Woolacott N

机构信息

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, UK.

出版信息

Health Technol Assess. 2008 Nov;12(34):iii-iv, xi-xiii, 1-198. doi: 10.3310/hta12340.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To determine the safety, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of radio frequency catheter ablation (RCFA) for the curative treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) and typical atrial flutter.

DATA SOURCES

For the systematic reviews of clinical studies 25 bibliographic databases and internet sources were searched in July 2006, with subsequent update searches for controlled trials conducted in April 2007. For the review of cost-effectiveness a broad range of studies was considered, including economic evaluations conducted alongside trials, modelling studies and analyses of administrative databases.

REVIEW METHODS

Systematic reviews of clinical studies and economic evaluations of catheter ablation for AF and typical atrial flutter were conducted. The quality of the included studies was assessed using standard methods. A decision model was developed to evaluate a strategy of RFCA compared with long-term antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) treatment alone in adults with paroxysmal AF. This was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of RFCA in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) under a range of assumptions. Decision uncertainty associated with this analysis was presented and used to inform future research priorities using the value of information analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 4858 studies were retrieved for the review of clinical effectiveness. Of these, eight controlled studies and 53 case series of AF were included. Two controlled studies and 23 case series of typical atrial flutter were included. For atrial fibrillation, freedom from arrhythmia at 12 months in case series ranged from 28% to 85.3% with a weighted mean of 76%. Three RCTs suggested that RFCA is more effective than long-term AAD therapy in patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal AF. Single RCTs also suggested superiority of RFCA over electrical cardioversion followed by long-term AAD therapy and of RFCA plus AAD therapy over AAD maintenance therapy alone in drug-refractory patients. The available RCTs provided insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of RFCA beyond 12 months or in patients with persistent or permanent AF. Adverse events and complications were generally rare. Mortality rates were low in both RCTs and case series. Cardiac tamponade and pulmonary vein stenosis were the most frequently recorded complications. For atrial flutter, freedom from arrhythmia at 12 months in case series ranged from 85% to 92% with a weighted mean of 88%. Neither of the atrial flutter RCTs reported freedom from arrhythmia at 12 months. One RCT found a statistically significant benefit favouring ablation over AADs in terms of freedom from arrhythmia at a mean follow-up of 22 months. A second RCT reported a more modest effect favouring ablation in terms of freedom from atrial flutter at follow-up in older patients (mean age 78 years) after their first episode of flutter. In the atrial flutter case series, mortality was rare and the most frequent complications were atrioventricular block and haematomas. Complications in the RCTs were similar, except for those events likely to have been caused by AAD therapy (e.g. thyroid dysfunction). The review of cost-effectiveness evidence found one relevant study, which from a UK NHS perspective had a number of important limitations. The base-case analysis in the decision model demonstrated that if the quality of life benefits of RFCA are maintained over the remaining lifetime of the patient then the cost-effectiveness of RFCA appears clear. These findings were robust over a wide range of alternative assumptions, being between 7763 and 7910 pounds per additional QALY with very little uncertainty. If the quality of life benefits of RFCA are assumed to be maintained for no more than 5 years, cost-effectiveness of RFCA is dependent on a number of factors. Estimates of cost-effectiveness that explored the influence of these factors ranged from 23,000 to 38,000 pounds per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

RFCA is a relatively safe and efficacious procedure for the therapeutic treatment of AF and typical atrial flutter. There is some randomised evidence to suggest that RFCA is superior to AADs in patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal AF in terms of freedom from arrhythmia at 12 months. RFCA appears to be cost-effective if the observed quality of life benefits are assumed to continue over a patient's lifetime. However, there remain uncertainties around longer-term effects of the intervention and the extent to which published effectiveness findings can be generalised to 'typical' UK practice. All catheter ablation procedures for the treatment of AF or atrial flutter undertaken in the UK should be recorded prospectively and centrally and measures to increase compliance in recording RFCA procedures may be needed. This would be of particular value in establishing the long-term benefits of RFCA and the true incidence and impact of any complications. Collection of appropriate quality of life data within any such registry would also be of value to future clinical and cost-effectiveness research in this area. Any planned multicentre RCTs comparing RFCA against best medical therapy for the treatment of AF and/or atrial flutter should be conducted among 'non-pioneering' centres using the techniques and equipment typically employed in UK practice and should measure relevant outcomes.

摘要

目的

确定射频导管消融术(RCFA)治疗心房颤动(AF)和典型心房扑动的安全性、临床有效性及成本效益。

数据来源

2006年7月检索了25个书目数据库和互联网资源以进行临床研究的系统评价,随后于2007年4月对对照试验进行了更新检索。对于成本效益评价,考虑了广泛的研究,包括与试验同时进行的经济评估、模型研究及行政数据库分析。

综述方法

对AF和典型心房扑动的导管消融术进行了临床研究的系统评价和经济评估。采用标准方法评估纳入研究的质量。建立了一个决策模型,以评估在阵发性AF成人患者中,与单纯长期抗心律失常药物(AAD)治疗相比,RFCA策略的效果。这用于在一系列假设下,根据每质量调整生命年(QALY)的成本来估计RFCA的成本效益。呈现了与该分析相关的决策不确定性,并用于通过信息价值分析为未来的研究重点提供参考。

结果

共检索到4858项研究用于临床有效性评价。其中,纳入了8项AF对照研究和53个病例系列。纳入了2项典型心房扑动对照研究和23个病例系列。对于心房颤动,病例系列中12个月无心律失常的比例在28%至85.3%之间,加权平均值为76%。三项随机对照试验(RCT)表明,在药物难治性阵发性AF患者中,RFCA比长期AAD治疗更有效。单项RCT还表明,在药物难治性患者中,RFCA优于电复律后长期AAD治疗,且RFCA联合AAD治疗优于单纯AAD维持治疗。现有RCT提供的证据不足,无法确定RFCA在12个月以上或持续性或永久性AF患者中的有效性。不良事件和并发症通常很少见。RCT和病例系列中的死亡率都很低。心脏压塞和肺静脉狭窄是最常记录的并发症。对于心房扑动,病例系列中12个月无心律失常的比例在85%至92%之间,加权平均值为88%。两项心房扑动RCT均未报告12个月无心律失常的情况。一项RCT发现,在平均随访22个月时,就无心律失常而言,消融术比AADs有统计学显著优势。第二项RCT报告称,在老年患者(平均年龄78岁)首次发生心房扑动后的随访中,消融术在无心房扑动方面的效果更为适度。在心房扑动病例系列中,死亡率罕见,最常见的并发症是房室传导阻滞和血肿。RCT中的并发症相似,但那些可能由AAD治疗引起的事件(如甲状腺功能障碍)除外。成本效益证据综述发现一项相关研究,从英国国民健康服务(NHS)的角度来看,该研究有一些重要局限性。决策模型中的基础案例分析表明,如果RFCA在患者剩余寿命期间维持生活质量益处,那么RFCA的成本效益似乎很明显。这些发现在广泛的替代假设下都很稳健,每增加一个QALY的成本在7763至7910英镑之间,不确定性很小。如果假设RFCA的生活质量益处仅维持不超过5年,则RFCA的成本效益取决于多个因素。探索这些因素影响的成本效益估计值为每QALY 23000至38000英镑。

结论

RFCA是治疗AF和典型心房扑动相对安全有效的方法。有一些随机证据表明,在药物难治性阵发性AF患者中,就12个月无心律失常而言,RFCA优于AADs。如果假设观察到的生活质量益处能在患者一生中持续,RFCA似乎具有成本效益。然而,该干预措施的长期效果以及已发表的有效性研究结果能在多大程度上推广到英国“典型”实践中仍存在不确定性。在英国进行的所有用于治疗AF或心房扑动的导管消融手术都应进行前瞻性集中记录,可能需要采取措施提高记录RFCA手术的依从性。这对于确定RFCA的长期益处以及任何并发症的真实发生率和影响将具有特别价值。在任何此类登记处收集适当的生活质量数据,对于该领域未来的临床和成本效益研究也将具有价值。任何计划中的比较RFCA与最佳药物治疗AF和/或心房扑动的多中心RCT,都应在“非开创性”中心进行,采用英国实践中通常使用 的技术和设备,并应测量相关结果。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验