Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39582704›Full record

ArticleCJC open2024

A Cost Analysis of Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: A Canadian Pre-Post Study.

Yousef N Bolous, Prosper Koto, John L Sapp, Chris Gray, David C Lee, Nicolas Berbenetz, Amir AbdelWahab, Ratika Parkash

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CJC open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Yousef N BolousDepartment of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Prosper KotoResearch, Innovation and Discovery, Nova Scotia Health, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
John L SappDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, QEII Health Sciences, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Chris GrayDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, QEII Health Sciences, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
David C LeeDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, QEII Health Sciences, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Nicolas BerbenetzDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, QEII Health Sciences, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Amir AbdelWahabDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, QEII Health Sciences, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Ratika ParkashDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, QEII Health Sciences, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: There is a paucity of Canadian studies using patient-level data to analyze the costs of catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF). We sought to identify the health care resource use, costs, and cost predictors of CA. Methods: A cost analysis was performed in a population of AF patients treated with CA in Central Zone Nova Scotia from 2010 to 2018. Costs were compared 2 years before ablation (pre-CA) with costs 2 years after (post-CA); the 3-month period post-CA was defined as the treatment window. Costs were also compared according to CA technology defined as before 2015 for patients treated with non-contact force sensing CA and after 2015 for patients treated with contact force sensing CA. Results: Heart failure hospitalizations, AF-related emergency department visits, acute inpatient admissions, and cardioversions all decreased after ablation. The cost difference post-CA vs pre-CA was CAD$18,869 (95% confidence interval [CI], $15,570-$22,168). This increase in costs was driven by costs incurred during the treatment window, which was $21,439 (95% CI, $20,468-$22,409). After excluding treatment window costs, the mean year 1 post-CA cost was $11,223 (95% CI, $9113-$13,334) and year 2 post-CA cost was $4555 (95% CI, $3145-$5965); both were lower than the pre-CA costs. Costs remained stable over the time frame of the study period, with no influence from new technologies on cost. The post-CA cost difference between the post-2015 and pre-2015 groups was $2573 (95% CI, -$2336 to $7481). Conclusions: We showed that although CA is expensive, it might be a cost-effective treatment modality for AF because of the associated reduction in costs and health care resource use.

Identifiers

PMID39582704
PMCPMC11583884

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.