Trial reportOpen heart2026
Economic evaluation of a novel dual-energy, large focal lattice-tip catheter versus conventional contact-force sensing radiofrequency catheter, for persistent atrial fibrillation ablation, from the English National Health Service perspective.
Trial report in Open heart, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPersistent atrial fibrillation (PersAF) presents a significant clinical and economic burden and is associated with poorer outcomes after catheter ablation compared with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). Pulsed field ablation (PFA) has emerged as a new form of energy modality for AF treatment. Sphere-9 is a novel dual-energy large-focal lattice tip (LFLT) catheter that is also capable of high-density mapping. The study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Sphere-9 catheter versus conventional radiofrequency (RF ablation for the treatment of PersAF in the English National Health Service (NHS) setting.
methodsIndividual patient data from the SPHERE Per-AF randomised controlled trial were used to estimate efficacy, safety and resource utilisation parameters in symptomatic PersAF patients. The cost-effectiveness model consisted of a hybrid decision tree (1-year time horizon) and a Markov model with 3-month cycle length (lifetime time horizon, 40 years) and was developed from the perspective of the English NHS. Unit costs were derived from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guideline for AF diagnosis and management (NG196) and NHS national cost collection data. Health benefits were expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and all benefits and costs were discounted at 3.5% per year in line with NICE requirements.
resultsLFLT ablation was found to be dominant compared with RF, since it was less costly and it produced greater health outcomes. LFLT was associated with an average cost of £15 433 and 8.26 QALYs per patient, compared with £20 861 and 8.20 QALYs for RF ablation. Results remained robust across all sensitivity and scenario analyses. DISCUSSION: The Sphere-9 catheter is a cost-saving strategy for treating patients with PersAF compared with conventional RF ablation. Given the growing burden of AF and limited healthcare resources, Sphere-9 presents a valuable option for improving patient outcomes while optimising NHS resource allocation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.