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 figureSupplemental Table I: Patient and procedure characteristics for assessment of total index admission and supply costSupplemental 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 costSupplemental Table III: Patient and procedure characteristics for sensitivity analysisAppendix I: Diagnosis and procedure codes for study attrition and outcomesAim: 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.

本数据集为发表于《比较疗效研究杂志》的论文《使用高级射频消融导管与第二代冷冻球囊导管进行心房颤动消融的比较研究》的同行评审补充材料。补充图表：补充表 I：评估总指数入院和供应成本的病人及手术特征；补充表 II：评估再入院、总指数入院成本加上 12 个月心血管相关住院成本以及总指数入院成本加上 12 个月心房颤动相关住院成本的病人及手术特征；补充表 III：敏感性分析的病人及手术特征；附录 I：研究脱落和结果诊断及手术代码。研究目标：比较使用 THERMOCOOL SMARTTOUCH™ SF (STSF) 射频消融导管与 Arctic Front Advance™ (AFA) 冷冻球囊导管进行心房颤动 (AF) 消融的病人成本和再入院情况。病人与方法：本研究采用 Premier 医疗保健数据库。使用倾向得分匹配法对两组病人进行匹配。评估了成本和再入院情况。使用回归模型进行结果评估。结果：经过倾向得分匹配后，STSF 和 AFA 两组队列中均确定了 2767 名病人。在匹配队列中，STSF 病人的供应成本显著低于 AFA 病人。与 AFA 病人相比，STSF 病人的 4-12 个月心房颤动相关住院再入院率显著降低（2.58% vs 3.99%；p = 0.0402）。包括指数手术成本和再入院成本在内的护理成本也对 STSF 病人低于 AFA 病人。结论：与使用 AFA 冷冻球囊导管相比，使用 STSF 消融导管进行心房颤动消融的病人具有更低的成本和心房颤动相关再入院率。