Supplementary materials: Atrial fibrillation ablation with advanced radiofrequency catheter versus second-generation cryoballoon catheter
These are peer-reviewed supplementary materials for the article 'Atrial fibrillation ablation with advanced radiofrequency catheter versus second-generation cryoballoon catheter' published in the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research.
- Supplementary figure
- Supplemental Table I: Patient and procedure characteristics for assessment of total index admission and supply cost
- Supplemental Table II: Patient and procedure characteristics for assessment of readmissions, total index admission cost plus 12-month CV-related inpatient admission cost, and total index admission cost plus 12-month AF-related inpatient admission cost
- Supplemental Table III: Patient and procedure characteristics for sensitivity analysis
- Appendix I: Diagnosis and procedure codes for study attrition and outcomes
Aim: To compare cost and readmissions among atrial fibrillation (AF) patients undergoing ablation using the THERMOCOOL SMARTTOUCH™ SF (STSF) radiofrequency catheter versus the Arctic Front Advance™ (AFA) cryoballoon catheter. Patients & methods: The Premier Healthcare Database was used for the study purposes. Propensity score matching was used to match patients in the two groups. Costs and readmissions were assessed. A regression model was used for outcome assessment. Results: After propensity matching, 2767 patients were identified in each of the STSF and AFA cohorts. In the matched cohort, STSF patients had significantly lower supply costs than AFA patients. STSF patients had significantly lower 4–12-month AF-related inpatient readmissions compared with AFA patients (2.58% vs 3.99%; p = 0.0402). Costs of care summing index procedure and readmission costs were also lower for the STSF patients versus AFA patients. Conclusions: Patients who underwent AF ablation using the STSF catheter versus the AFA catheter had lower cost and AF-related readmissions.
