Wise Bernardo, Albarrán-Rincón Ramón, De Lossada Juste Alfonso, Aio Ane Erkiaga, Klesius Armin, Biundo Eliana, Maes Edith, Cordon Audrey, Ramos Pablo, García-Bolao Ignacio
Department of Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery, IdiSNA, Navarra Institute for Health Research, Arrhythmia Unit, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, University of Navarra and School of Medicine, Avda Pio XII sn, 31008, Pamplona, Spain.
Boston Scientific Corporation, Boston, MA, USA.
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2022 Jan;63(1):103-108. doi: 10.1007/s10840-021-00951-x. Epub 2021 Feb 6.
Advanced non-fluoroscopic mapping systems for radiofrequency ablation (RFA) have shown to be an effective treatment of atrial fibrillation. This study analyzes the resource usage and subsequent costs associated with the implementation of an ultra-high density mapping system (UHDMS) compared to non-ultra-high density mapping systems (NUHDMS).
This retrospective observational study included 120 patients (18 years or older) with paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation who underwent RFA for de novo pulmonary vein isolation guided either by an UHDMS (n=63) or NUHDMS (n=57) for their index procedure. We compared patient characteristics, short- and long-term procedural outcomes, resource usage, and clinical outcomes followed up to 16 months between the two treatment groups. The cost analysis was conducted from the perspective of a single center in Spain (Clinica Universidad de Navarra).
Neither baseline patient characteristics nor complication rate differed between groups. Repeat RFAs following recurrent arrhythmia at 16 months was lower in the UHDMS patient group than in the NUHDMS group (6 vs. 14, respectively; P=0.027). The average total cost per patient was €1,600 lower in the UHDMS group, compared to the NUHDMS group (€11,061 and €12,661, respectively; P=0.03).
In patients treated with an NUHDMS, 25% had a repeat ablation for recurrent arrhythmia, whereas only 9% of patients treated with a UHDMS had one (61% relative risk reduction), resulting in an average cost saving per patient of €1,600.
用于射频消融(RFA)的先进非荧光透视标测系统已被证明是治疗心房颤动的有效方法。本研究分析了与非超高密度标测系统(NUHDMS)相比,实施超高密度标测系统(UHDMS)的资源使用情况及后续成本。
这项回顾性观察研究纳入了120例年龄在18岁及以上的阵发性或持续性心房颤动患者,他们接受了首次RFA治疗,以进行由UHDMS(n = 63)或NUHDMS(n = 57)引导的初发性肺静脉隔离。我们比较了两个治疗组之间的患者特征、短期和长期手术结果、资源使用情况以及随访至16个月的临床结果。成本分析是从西班牙的一个单一中心(纳瓦拉大学诊所)的角度进行的。
两组之间的基线患者特征和并发症发生率均无差异。UHDMS患者组在16个月时因复发性心律失常而进行的重复RFA低于NUHDMS组(分别为6例和14例;P = 0.027)。与NUHDMS组相比,UHDMS组每位患者的平均总成本低1600欧元(分别为11,061欧元和12,661欧元;P = 0.03)。
在接受NUHDMS治疗的患者中,25%因复发性心律失常而进行了重复消融,而接受UHDMS治疗的患者中只有9%进行了重复消融(相对风险降低61%),每位患者平均节省成本1600欧元。