A comparative analysis of clinical outcomes and disposable costs of different catheter ablation methods for the treatment of atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia
Received 18 April 2017
Accepted for publication 27 July 2017
Published 6 November 2017 Volume 2017:9 Pages 677—683
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewers approved by Dr Akshita Wason
Peer reviewer comments 3
Editor who approved publication: Professor Giorgio Colombo
Adam E Berman,1–4 Harold Rivner,1 Robin Chalkley,1 Vahé Heboyan2
1Department of Medicine, Medical College of Georgia, 2Department of Clinical and Digital Health Sciences, College of Allied Health Sciences, 3Division of Cardiology, 4Department of Pediatrics, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA
Background: Catheter ablation of atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) is a commonly performed electrophysiology (EP) procedure. Few data exist comparing conventional (CONV) versus novel ablation strategies from both clinical and direct cost perspectives. We sought to investigate the disposable costs and clinical outcomes associated with three different ablation methodologies used in the ablation of AVNRT.
Methods: We performed a retrospective review of AVNRT ablations performed at Augusta University Medical Center from 2006 to 2014. A total of 183 patients were identified. Three different ablation techniques were compared: CONV manual radiofrequency (RF) (n=60), remote magnetic navigation (RMN)-guided RF (n=67), and cryoablation (CRYO) (n=56).
Results: Baseline demographics did not differ between the three groups except for a higher prevalence of cardiomyopathy in the RMN group (p<0.01). The clinical end point of interest was recurrent AVNRT following the index ablation procedure. A significantly higher number of recurrent AVNRT cases occurred in the CRYO group as compared to CONV and RMN (p=0.003; OR =7.75) groups. Cost-benefit analysis showed both CONV and RMN to be dominant compared to CRYO. Cost-minimization analysis demonstrated the least expensive ablation method to be CONV (mean disposable catheter cost = CONV US$2340; CRYO US$3515; RMN US$5190). Despite comparable clinical outcomes, the incremental cost of RMN over CONV averaged US$3094 per procedure.
Conclusion: AVNRT ablation using either CONV or RMN techniques is equally effective and associated with lower AVNRT recurrence rates than CRYO. CONV ablation carries significant disposable cost savings as compared to RMN, despite similar efficacy.
Keywords: catheter ablation, cryoablation, remote magnetic navigation, AVNRT, cost analysis
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]