A cost-consequence analysis comparing three distinct cardiac ablation strategies for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

Abstract Background Cardiac ablation is a well-established treatment option for preventing atrial fibrillation (AF). While radiofrequency, cryo-energy, and laser energies are commonly employed in catheter ablation, they present the risk of potential damage to adjacent organs such as the oesophagus and phrenic nerve. To address these concerns, new technologies are being explored including pulsed field ablation (PFA), a non-thermal energy approach that employs high-voltage, short-duration pulses to selectively destroy target cells. Purpose The present analysis aims at: i) quantifying the short-term costs related to three ablation strategies for paroxysmal AF (PFA, radiofrequency ablation -RFA-, and cryo-balloon ablation -CRYO-), identify the cost drivers, and assess potential variations in resource consumption for each treatment alternative; ii) comparing the medium-term (1-year) economic implications of adopting the three alternatives, in terms of redo procedures (effectiveness) and complications (safety). Methods A cost-consequence model was developed to compare economic outcomes of the three ablation strategies for paroxysmal AF in the short- (during procedure) and medium-term (1-year). Resource consumption data during the procedure were collected by two European medical centres specialized in cardiac ablation (N=61 patients). For the medium-term analysis, costs were correlated to the effectiveness and safety of the procedures. The clinical data (i.e., redo and complication rates) considered in the model were retrieved from published literature. Costs and tariffs were collected from economic formularies of the respective hospitals. A scenario analysis was conducted to evaluate economic outcomes under various hypothetical difference in the prices of treatment kits. Results A significant difference was registered in terms of pre-procedural (mean±SD: 13.9±4.4 min for PFA, 20.1±7.6 min for CRYO and 20.5±7.7 min for RFA; ANOVA test p=0.003) and procedural time (skin-to-skin), favouring PFA over RFA and CRYO (53.6±26.8 min for PFA, 72.4±28.1 min for CRYO and 149.9±99.9 min for RFA; p<0.0001; Table 1). PFA was associated with lower procedural costs vs CRYO (-€400) and RFA (-€827). A similar economic advantage was observed in the medium-term (Table 2). The scenario analysis showed that PFA would be cost-saving vs CRYO (Δtotal costs ≤ 0) up to a price difference of +€881 (i.e., PFA kit is more expensive than CRYO kit), and similarly, up to a price difference of +€1,306 vs RFA. Above these thresholds, PFA would be considered cost-effective vs CRYO or RFA, due to its efficacy despite being more expensive. Conclusion In summary, PFA emerges as cost-effective or even cost-saving over CRYO and RFA, thanks to its faster execution, lower redo, and complications rate. Moreover, PFA time predictability would facilitate hospital planning. For a complete analysis, these benefits should be evaluated against the difference in acquisition costs among treatments.Procedural time by phase and techniqueCumulative savings per technique