Search

Introduction: Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) is frequently studied in randomized trials, observational and registry studies. The aim of this expert opinion is to provide guidance for clinicians and industry regarding the development of future clinical studies on catheter ablation of AF, implement lessons learned from previous studies, and promote a higher degree of consistency across studies. Background: Studies on catheter ablation of AF may benefit from well‐described definitions of endpoints and consistent methodology and documentation of outcomes related to efficacy, safety and cost‐effectiveness. The availably of new, innovative technologies warrants further consideration about their application and impact on study design and the choice of endpoints. Moreover, recent insights gained from AF ablation studies suggest a reconsideration of some methodological aspects. Methods: A panel of clinical experts on catheter ablation of AF and designing and conducting clinical studies developed an expert opinion on the design and endpoints for studies on catheter ablation of AF. Discussions within the expert panel with the aim to reach consensus on predefined topics were based on outcomes reported in the literature and experiences from recent clinical trials. Results: A comprehensive set of recommendations is presented. Key elements include the documentation of clinical AF, medication during the study, repeated ablations and their effect on endpoint assessments, postablation blanking and the choice of rhythm‐related and other endpoints. Conclusion: This expert opinion provides guidance and promotes consistency regarding design of AF catheter ablation studies and identified aspects requiring further research to optimize study design and methodology. Recent insights from studies on catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) and the availability of new innovative technologies warrant reconsideration of methodological aspects related to study design and the choice and assessment of endpoints. This expert opinion, developed by clinical experts on catheter ablation of AF provides a comprehensive set of recommendations related to these methodological aspects. The aim of this expert opinion is to provide guidance for clinicians and industry regarding the development of clinical studies, implement lessons learned from previous studies, and promote a higher degree of consistency across studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that first-line cryoballoon pulmonary vein isolation decreases atrial tachycardia in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) compared with antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs). The aim of this study was to develop a cost-effectiveness model (CEM) for first-line cryoablation compared with first-line AADs for the treatment of PAF. The model used a Danish healthcare perspective. Methods: Individual patient-level data from the Cryo-FIRST, STOP AF and EARLY-AF RCTs were used to parameterise the CEM. The model structure consisted of a hybrid decision tree (one-year time horizon) and a Markov model (40-year time horizon, with a three-month cycle length). Health-related quality of life was expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per year. Model outcomes were produced using probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results: First-line cryoablation is dominant, meaning it results in lower costs (-€2,663) and more QALYs (0.18) when compared to first-line AADs. First-line cryoablation also has a 99.96% probability of being cost-effective, at a cost-effectiveness threshold of €23,200 per QALY gained. Regardless of initial treatment, patients were expected to receive ∼ 1.2 ablation procedures over a lifetime horizon. Conclusion: First-line cryoablation is both more effective and less costly (i.e. dominant), when compared with AADs for patients with symptomatic PAF in a Danish healthcare system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]