Cost Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation vs. Medical Treatment for Atrial Fibrillation in Japan  - Cost Performance for Atrial Fibrillation -

Noro, Mahito; Kujime, Shingo; Ito, Naoshi; Enomoto, Yoshinari; Nakamura, K; Sakai, Tsuyoshi; Saruta, Takao; Sugi, Kaoru

doi:10.1253/circj.cj-10-0793

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on the model, AF ablation would become cost-effective after 5 years of follow-up. The findings supported earlier publications from our group ranging the break-even point for the cost of AF ablation and medical therapy at 3.2–8.4 years [36] and a recent Japanese analysis, placing the cross over of the costs between 3.8-14.3 years [55]. …”

Section: Cost-effectiveness Perspectivesupporting

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cost of Atrial Fibrillation: Invasive vs Non-Invasive Management in 2012

Khaykin

Shamiss²

2012

CCR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia. It places an enormous burden on the patients, caregivers and the society at large. As a chronic illness, AF accrues significant costs related to clinical presentation, complications and loss of productivity. Novel invasive approaches to AF promise a cure in some patients and a significant reduction in AF burden in others, but are very expensive. This paper will address the cost of conventional and invasive strategies in AF care and will review the evidence on the comparative cost effectiveness of these approaches.

show abstract

Section: Cost-effectiveness Perspectivesupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Six groups of investigators attempted to perform a cost-benefit analysis of AF ablation with that of medical therapy [37, 51-55]. In the first of these studies, a Markov decision analysis model looking at 55 and 65-year-old cohorts of patients at low and moderate risk of stroke was created by the investigators [51].…”

Section: Cost-effectiveness Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Cost of Atrial Fibrillation: Invasive vs Non-Invasive Management in 2012

Khaykin

Shamiss²

2012

CCR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…17,18 A Japanese report estimated a cost range of ¥1,063,200-¥4,059,280 (2010). 19 Data from government fee schedules were used to generate expenses of $21,294CAD in Canada (2007) and $26,584USD in the US (2008). 20,21 Unfortunately, many of these published cost estimates incorporated into CEA analyses are over 10 years old and simply adjusting for inflation may fail to reflect present-day costs.…”

Section: Cost Of Catheter Ablationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the Cost-effectiveness of Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation

Chang

Kaiser

Ullal

et al. 2014

Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the most common cardiac conditions treated in primary care and specialty cardiology settings, and is associated with considerable morbidity, mortality and cost. Catheter ablation, typically by electrically isolating the pulmonary veins and surrounding tissue, is more effective at maintaining sinus rhythm than conventional antiarrhythmic drug therapy and is now recommended as first-line therapy. From a value standpoint, the cost-effectiveness of ablation must incorporate the upfront procedural costs and risks with the benefits of longer term improvements in quality of life (QOL) and healthcare utilisation. Here, we present a primer on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), review the data on cost-effectiveness of AF ablation and outline key areas for further investigation.

show abstract

“…With technical developments in catheter ablation, the indications for its use have broadened. The calculated costs for the procedure corresponded to the costs of medical therapy for 3.8-14.3 years in Japan in 2011 [8], and the procedural costs tend to continue increasing. In addition, the choice of anticoagulation therapy in Japan has also widened based on the emergence of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs), such as dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%