Heart Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Health Economics Outcomes Research, St. Jude Medical, Sylmar, California.
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2017 Feb;3(2):129-138. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2016.06.002. Epub 2016 Aug 3.
The purpose of this study was to compare health care costs associated with repeat ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) with health care costs associated with a successful first procedure.
Catheter ablation has become established as a rhythm control strategy for symptomatic paroxysmal and persistent AF. The economic impact of ablation is not completely understood, and it may be affected by repeat procedures performed for recurrent AF.
The source of data was the MarketScan (Truven Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan) administrative claims dataset from April 2008 to March 2013, including U.S. patients with private and Medicare supplemental insurance. Patients who underwent an outpatient atrial ablation procedure and a diagnosis of AF were identified. Total health care cost was calculated for 1 year before and after the ablation. Patients were categorized as having undergone a repeat ablation if an additional ablation was performed in the following year.
Of 12,027 patients included in the study, repeat ablation was performed in 2,066 (17.2%) within 1 year. Patients with repeat ablation had higher rates of emergency department visits (43.4% vs. 32.2%; < 0.001) and subsequent hospitalization (35.6% vs. 21.5%; p < 0.001), after excluding hospitalizations for the repeat procedure. Total medical cost was higher for patients with repeat ablation ($52,821 vs. $13,412; p < 0.001), and it remained 46% higher even after excluding the cost associated with additional ablations ($19,621 vs. $13,412; p < 0.001).
Health care costs are significantly higher for patients with a repeat ablation for AF than for patients with only a single ablation procedure, even though both groups have similar baseline characteristics. The increased costs persist even after excluding the cost of the repeat ablation itself. These results emphasize the economic benefit of procedural success in AF ablation.
本研究旨在比较与复发性心房颤动(AF)消融相关的医疗成本与首次成功手术相关的医疗成本。
导管消融已成为治疗有症状的阵发性和持续性 AF 的节律控制策略。消融的经济影响尚不完全清楚,并且可能受到因复发性 AF 而进行的重复手术的影响。
数据来源于 2008 年 4 月至 2013 年 3 月的 MarketScan(Truven Health,密歇根州安阿伯)行政索赔数据集,包括拥有私人和 Medicare 补充保险的美国患者。识别出接受门诊心房消融术和 AF 诊断的患者。计算消融前 1 年和后 1 年的总医疗费用。如果在次年再次进行消融,则将患者归类为重复消融。
在纳入研究的 12027 例患者中,1 年内有 2066 例(17.2%)进行了重复消融。重复消融的患者急诊就诊率(43.4%比 32.2%;<0.001)和随后的住院率(35.6%比 21.5%;p<0.001)更高,排除重复手术的住院费用后也是如此。重复消融患者的总医疗费用更高(52821 美元比 13412 美元;p<0.001),即使排除了额外消融的费用,费用仍高出 46%(19621 美元比 13412 美元;p<0.001)。
与仅进行一次消融手术的患者相比,因 AF 而进行重复消融的患者的医疗成本明显更高,尽管两组患者的基线特征相似。即使排除重复消融本身的费用,成本仍持续增加。这些结果强调了在 AF 消融中手术成功的经济效益。