HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Simon Kendall Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lamotte, M. Articles by Siebert, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lamotte, M. Articles by Siebert, M. Related Collections Electrophysiology - arrhythmias

A health economic evaluation of concomitant surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation

^a IMS Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Brussels, Belgium
^b Ghent University, Department of Public Health, Gent, Belgium
^c Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester, UK
^d James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK
^e St Jude Medical, Zaventem, Belgium

Received 9 April 2007; received in revised form 10 July 2007; accepted 11 July 2007.

^_* Corresponding author. Address: IMS HEOR, Rue De Crayer 6, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium. Tel.: +32 2 4530841; fax: +32 2 4531667. (Email: MLamotte{at}be.imshealth.com).

Objective: Current drug treatment for atrial fibrillation is suboptimal and percutaneous catheter-based ablation techniques may be associated with complications. The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of (1) high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU)-assisted surgical ablation, (2) the classic ‘cut and sew’ maze procedure and (3) percutaneous ablation, all concomitant to cardiac surgery (e.g. CABG, valve repair) in comparison with non-interventional (drug) treatment. Methods: A Markov model was developed to predict the cost-effectiveness of the interventional approaches. The model consisted of four disease states (sinus rhythm without complications, atrial fibrillation without complications, stroke and death), allowing for 3-monthly transitions between these states and using direct UK costs from the National Health Service perspective. Clinical input data are obtained from literature and cost input data from National Health Service sources and literature. Five-year total and incremental costs are calculated. Incremental effects are expressed in quality-adjusted-life-years-gained (QALYG). Results: All interventional treatments show good incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in all atrial fibrillation types, compared to drug treatment. For classic maze the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio compared to non-interventional atrial fibrillation treatment varies from 1343 to 3471 GBP/QALYG, for HIFU-assisted surgical ablation from 4005 to 7448 GBP/QALYG and for percutaneous ablation from 7041 to 17,372 GBP/QALYG depending on the atrial fibrillation type. Sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of the data. Conclusions: Performing a classic maze procedure or HIFU-assisted surgical ablation concomitant to a scheduled CABG or valve procedure is highly cost-effective. Performing a percutaneous ablation in a subsequent procedure is also cost-effective, but to a lower extent. Both the maze procedure and the HIFU-assisted surgical ablation are cheaper and more effective than percutaneous ablation in a subsequent procedure.

Key Words: Surgical ablation • Arrhythmia • Atrial fibrillation • Cost-effectiveness analysis • Health economics