FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3165694653> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3165694653 abstract "Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): This research study was funded by Biosense Webster, Inc. Dr Leung has received research support from Attune Medical (Chicago, IL) towards a research fellowship at St. Georges University of London. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed. Background Randomised data on patient-related outcomes comparing catheter ablation to medical therapy for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) have shown the effectiveness of catheter ablation. Ablation versus medical therapy should also be analysed from a health economics perspective to achieve optimal healthcare resource allocation. Purpose To determine the cost effectiveness of catheter ablation compared to medical therapy for the treatment of atrial fibrillation, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Methods A patient-level Markov health-state transition model was used to conduct a cost utility analysis comparing catheter ablation and medical therapy for the treatment of AF. A systematic review and meta-analysis of catheter ablation treatment versus medical therapy (rhythm and/or rate control drugs) was conducted to enable comparison of AF recurrence between treatment groups utilising the model. Additional model parameters were established based upon a best-evidence review of the literature. The model simulated care delivered from a secondary care perspective. Total patients simulated in this model over a lifetime were 250,000, with patients entering the model at age 64. Only previously treated AF patients were included, including those with concomitant heart failure. A separate scenario analysis was conducted to determine the cost effectiveness specifically in the cohort of patients with AF and heart failure. Main outcomes measures Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and average total expected costs and quality-of-life years (QALYs) incurred over the lifetime of a patient. AF recurrence, complications and cardiovascular adverse events were compared over the total duration inside the model. Results In the base case analysis, catheter ablation resulted in a favourable ICER of £8,614 per additional QALY gained when compared to medical therapy, well below the national Willingness-to-Pay threshold of £20,000. Catheter ablation was associated with an expected increase of 1.01 QALYs, while adding an additional cost £8,742 over a patient’s lifetime. The cost-effectiveness of catheter ablation was improved in the heart failure sub-group analysis, with an ICER of £6,438. A significantly greater proportion of patients in the medical therapy group failed rhythm control at any stage compared to catheter ablation (72% vs 24%) and at a faster rate (median time to treatment failure: 3.8 vs 10 years). Conclusion Catheter ablation appears to be a highly cost-effective treatment for atrial fibrillation, compared to medical therapy, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. With low rates of adverse events and superiority in achieving rhythm control, AF ablation services should be prioritised with appropriate allocation of healthcare resources." @default.
• W3165694653 created "2021-06-07" @default.
• W3165694653 creator A5001046769 @default.
• W3165694653 creator A5027340011 @default.
• W3165694653 creator A5038587156 @default.
• W3165694653 creator A5046513185 @default.
• W3165694653 creator A5056664454 @default.
• W3165694653 creator A5065428305 @default.
• W3165694653 creator A5069535529 @default.
• W3165694653 date "2021-05-01" @default.
• W3165694653 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W3165694653 title "Cost-effectiveness of catheter ablation versus medical therapy for the treatment of atrial fibrillation in the United Kingdom" @default.
• W3165694653 doi "https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euab116.531" @default.
• W3165694653 hasPublicationYear "2021" @default.
• W3165694653 type Work @default.
• W3165694653 sameAs 3165694653 @default.
• W3165694653 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W3165694653 countsByYear W31656946532022 @default.
• W3165694653 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3165694653 hasAuthorship W3165694653A5001046769 @default.
• W3165694653 hasAuthorship W3165694653A5027340011 @default.
• W3165694653 hasAuthorship W3165694653A5038587156 @default.
• W3165694653 hasAuthorship W3165694653A5046513185 @default.
• W3165694653 hasAuthorship W3165694653A5056664454 @default.
• W3165694653 hasAuthorship W3165694653A5065428305 @default.
• W3165694653 hasAuthorship W3165694653A5069535529 @default.
• W3165694653 hasBestOaLocation W31656946531 @default.
• W3165694653 hasConcept C12713177 @default.
• W3165694653 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W3165694653 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W3165694653 hasConcept C160735492 @default.
• W3165694653 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W3165694653 hasConcept C164705383 @default.
• W3165694653 hasConcept C177713679 @default.
• W3165694653 hasConcept C2776131983 @default.
• W3165694653 hasConcept C2778902805 @default.
• W3165694653 hasConcept C2779161974 @default.
• W3165694653 hasConcept C2781267111 @default.
• W3165694653 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W3165694653 hasConcept C50522688 @default.
• W3165694653 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3165694653 hasConceptScore W3165694653C12713177 @default.
• W3165694653 hasConceptScore W3165694653C141071460 @default.
• W3165694653 hasConceptScore W3165694653C154945302 @default.
• W3165694653 hasConceptScore W3165694653C160735492 @default.
• W3165694653 hasConceptScore W3165694653C162324750 @default.
• W3165694653 hasConceptScore W3165694653C164705383 @default.
• W3165694653 hasConceptScore W3165694653C177713679 @default.
• W3165694653 hasConceptScore W3165694653C2776131983 @default.
• W3165694653 hasConceptScore W3165694653C2778902805 @default.
• W3165694653 hasConceptScore W3165694653C2779161974 @default.
• W3165694653 hasConceptScore W3165694653C2781267111 @default.
• W3165694653 hasConceptScore W3165694653C41008148 @default.
• W3165694653 hasConceptScore W3165694653C50522688 @default.
• W3165694653 hasConceptScore W3165694653C71924100 @default.
• W3165694653 hasIssue "Supplement_3" @default.
• W3165694653 hasLocation W31656946531 @default.
• W3165694653 hasLocation W31656946532 @default.
• W3165694653 hasLocation W31656946533 @default.
• W3165694653 hasOpenAccess W3165694653 @default.
• W3165694653 hasPrimaryLocation W31656946531 @default.
• W3165694653 hasRelatedWork W1201797503 @default.
• W3165694653 hasRelatedWork W2094486097 @default.
• W3165694653 hasRelatedWork W2324625686 @default.
• W3165694653 hasRelatedWork W2330651661 @default.
• W3165694653 hasRelatedWork W2365785721 @default.
• W3165694653 hasRelatedWork W2981692034 @default.
• W3165694653 hasRelatedWork W2992013522 @default.
• W3165694653 hasRelatedWork W2997443537 @default.
• W3165694653 hasRelatedWork W4221132695 @default.
• W3165694653 hasRelatedWork W4234854605 @default.
• W3165694653 hasVolume "23" @default.
• W3165694653 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3165694653 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3165694653 magId "3165694653" @default.
• W3165694653 workType "article" @default.