Arrhythmias & electrophysiology
Cost, efficiency, and outcomes of pulsed field ablation vs thermal ablation for atrial fibrillation: A real-world study
Authors' conclusion
In this contemporary real-world study of the 3 major AF ablation modalities used concurrently, PFA had shorter skin-to-skin and catheter laboratory times than did CB and RF, with similarly low rates of complications. However, PFA procedures were considerably more expensive, largely because of higher equipment cost.
Study context
- Population
- Consecutive patients undergoing first-time atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation
- Participants
- 707 patients
- Exposure
- Pulsed field ablation (PFA) vs CB vs RF ablation for AF
- PFAn = 208
- CBn = 325
- RFn = 174
- Outcome
- Cost, efficiency, effectiveness and safety
Methodological detailsreal-world, consecutive patients
- Real-world
- Consecutive patients
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Overall procedural cost (equipment, laboratory use, hospital stay)
PFA
£10,010
median
CB
£8106
median
RF
£8949
median
P < 0.001
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Skin-to-skin time — PFA vs CB, RF · shorter with PFA
P < 0.001
Catheter laboratory time — PFA vs CB, RF · shorter with PFA
P < 0.001
General anaesthesia use
- General anaesthesia use — Differed across modalities
- P < .001
Safety
- Major complications overall
- 1%
- No significant differences between modalities
Original publication
Cost, efficiency, and outcomes of pulsed field ablation vs thermal ablation for atrial fibrillation: A real-world study. Heart Rhythm. Published 17 May 2024. doi:10.
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it