Cost-utility of VISITAG SURPOINT in catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation
© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC..
BACKGROUND: Clinical studies have demonstrated the safety, efficacy, and efficiency of VISITAG SURPOINT® (VS), which provides important lesion markers during catheter ablation (CA) of atrial fibrillation (AF). The present study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of CA with VS compared to CA without VS in AF from the publicly-funded German and Belgium healthcare perspectives.
METHODS: We constructed a two-stage cost utility model that included a decision tree to simulate clinical events, costs, and utilities during the first year after the index procedure and a Markov model to simulate transitions between health states throughout a patient's lifetime. Model inputs included published literature, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials AF outcomes, and publicly available administrative data on costs. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine the robustness of the model.
RESULTS: CA with VS was associated with lower per patient costs vs CA without VS (Germany: €3295 vs. €3936, Belgium: €3194 vs. €3814) and similar quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient (Germany: 5.35 vs. 5.34, Belgium: 5.68 vs. 5.67). CA with VS was the dominant ablation strategy (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios: Germany: €-52,455/QALY, Belgium: €-50,676/QALY). The model results were robust and not highly sensitive to variation to individual parameters with regard to QALYs or costs. Freedom from AF and procedure time had the greatest impact on model results, highlighting the importance of these outcomes in ablation.
CONCLUSIONS: CA with VS resulted in cost savings and QALY gains compared to CA without VS, supporting the increased adoption of VS in CA in Germany and Belgium.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2024 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2024 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:47 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE - 47(2024), 4 vom: 10. Apr., Seite 568-576 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
De Potter, Tom [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Clinical |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 08.04.2024 Date Revised 11.04.2024 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1111/pace.14931 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM368972836 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM368972836 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240412232854.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 240229s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1111/pace.14931 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1373.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM368972836 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)38407315 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a De Potter, Tom |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Cost-utility of VISITAG SURPOINT in catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 08.04.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 11.04.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC. | ||
| 520 | |a BACKGROUND: Clinical studies have demonstrated the safety, efficacy, and efficiency of VISITAG SURPOINT® (VS), which provides important lesion markers during catheter ablation (CA) of atrial fibrillation (AF). The present study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of CA with VS compared to CA without VS in AF from the publicly-funded German and Belgium healthcare perspectives | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: We constructed a two-stage cost utility model that included a decision tree to simulate clinical events, costs, and utilities during the first year after the index procedure and a Markov model to simulate transitions between health states throughout a patient's lifetime. Model inputs included published literature, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials AF outcomes, and publicly available administrative data on costs. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine the robustness of the model | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: CA with VS was associated with lower per patient costs vs CA without VS (Germany: €3295 vs. €3936, Belgium: €3194 vs. €3814) and similar quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient (Germany: 5.35 vs. 5.34, Belgium: 5.68 vs. 5.67). CA with VS was the dominant ablation strategy (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios: Germany: €-52,455/QALY, Belgium: €-50,676/QALY). The model results were robust and not highly sensitive to variation to individual parameters with regard to QALYs or costs. Freedom from AF and procedure time had the greatest impact on model results, highlighting the importance of these outcomes in ablation | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSIONS: CA with VS resulted in cost savings and QALY gains compared to CA without VS, supporting the increased adoption of VS in CA in Germany and Belgium | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Meta-Analysis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't | |
| 650 | 4 | |a clinical | |
| 650 | 4 | |a cost‐effectiveness | |
| 650 | 4 | |a economic | |
| 650 | 4 | |a model | |
| 650 | 4 | |a quality‐adjusted life years | |
| 650 | 4 | |a radiofrequency | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Tong, Cindy |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Maccioni, Sonia |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Velleca, Maria |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Galvain, Thibaut |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE |d 1983 |g 47(2024), 4 vom: 10. Apr., Seite 568-576 |w (DE-627)NLM000837431 |x 1540-8159 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:47 |g year:2024 |g number:4 |g day:10 |g month:04 |g pages:568-576 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pace.14931 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 47 |j 2024 |e 4 |b 10 |c 04 |h 568-576 | ||