首页> 外文期刊>Health technology assessment: HTA >Curative catheter ablation in atrial fibrillation and typical atrial flutter: systematic review and economic evaluation.
【24h】

Curative catheter ablation in atrial fibrillation and typical atrial flutter: systematic review and economic evaluation.

机译:治疗房颤导管消融和典型心房扑动:系统性回顾和经济评价。

获取原文
           

摘要

OBJECTIVES: To determine the safety, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of radio frequency catheter ablation (RCFA) for the curative treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) and typical atrial flutter. DATA SOURCES: For the systematic reviews of clinical studies 25 bibliographic databases and internet sources were searched in July 2006, with subsequent update searches for controlled trials conducted in April 2007. For the review of cost-effectiveness a broad range of studies was considered, including economic evaluations conducted alongside trials, modelling studies and analyses of administrative databases. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic reviews of clinical studies and economic evaluations of catheter ablation for AF and typical atrial flutter were conducted. The quality of the included studies was assessed using standard methods. A decision model was developed to evaluate a strategy of RFCA compared with long-term antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) treatment alone in adults with paroxysmal AF. This was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of RFCA in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) under a range of assumptions. Decision uncertainty associated with this analysis was presented and used to inform future research priorities using the value of information analysis. RESULTS: A total of 4858 studies were retrieved for the review of clinical effectiveness. Of these, eight controlled studies and 53 case series of AF were included. Two controlled studies and 23 case series of typical atrial flutter were included. For atrial fibrillation, freedom from arrhythmia at 12 months in case series ranged from 28% to 85.3% with a weighted mean of 76%. Three RCTs suggested that RFCA is more effective than long-term AAD therapy in patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal AF. Single RCTs also suggested superiority of RFCA over electrical cardioversion followed by long-term AAD therapy and of RFCA plus AAD therapy over AAD maintenance therapy alone in drug-refractory patients. The available RCTs provided insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of RFCA beyond 12 months or in patients with persistent or permanent AF. Adverse events and complications were generally rare. Mortality rates were low in both RCTs and case series. Cardiac tamponade and pulmonary vein stenosis were the most frequently recorded complications. For atrial flutter, freedom from arrhythmia at 12 months in case series ranged from 85% to 92% with a weighted mean of 88%. Neither of the atrial flutter RCTs reported freedom from arrhythmia at 12 months. One RCT found a statistically significant benefit favouring ablation over AADs in terms of freedom from arrhythmia at a mean follow-up of 22 months. A second RCT reported a more modest effect favouring ablation in terms of freedom from atrial flutter at follow-up in older patients (mean age 78 years) after their first episode of flutter. In the atrial flutter case series, mortality was rare and the most frequent complications were atrioventricular block and haematomas. Complications in the RCTs were similar, except for those events likely to have been caused by AAD therapy (e.g. thyroid dysfunction). The review of cost-effectiveness evidence found one relevant study, which from a UK NHS perspective had a number of important limitations. The base-case analysis in the decision model demonstrated that if the quality of life benefits of RFCA are maintained over the remaining lifetime of the patient then the cost-effectiveness of RFCA appears clear. These findings were robust over a wide range of alternative assumptions, being between 7763 and 7910 pounds per additional QALY with very little uncertainty. If the quality of life benefits of RFCA are assumed to be maintained for no more than 5 years, cost-effectiveness of RFCA is dependent on a number of factors. Estimates of cost-effectiveness that explored the influence of these factors ranged from 23,000 to 38,000 pounds per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: RFCA is a relative
机译:目的:确定安全、临床效率和成本效益的收音机射频导管消融(RCFA)治疗治疗心房颤动(房颤)和典型心房扑动。系统评价的临床研究25书目数据库和网络资源搜索2006年7月,后续更新4月份搜索进行对照试验2007. 被认为是广泛的研究,包括经济评价一起进行试验,行政的建模研究和分析数据库。临床研究和经济评价房颤导管消融,典型的心房颤振进行了。包括研究评估使用标准方法。评估RFCA相比之下的策略长期抗心律失常的药物(AAD)治疗独自一人在成人与阵发性房颤。这是使用估计RFCA的成本效益成本每质量调整生命年(提升)在一系列的假设条件下。与此相关的不确定性分析告诉未来的研究提出和使用优先使用信息的价值分析。临床检查的检索有效性。系列和53例房颤被包括在内。控制和23例研究一系列的典型心房扑动都包括在内。颤,自由从心律失常12个月的病例分析从28%到85.3%不等加权平均数的76%。RFCA是比长期的广告更有效治疗drug-refractory患者阵发性房颤。单一的相关建议RFCA要优于电复律法长期AAD疗法和RFCA紧随其后加上广告在广告维持疗法治疗独自在drug-refractory病人。提供足够的证据来确定相关的RFCA超出12个月或的有效性长期或永久性房颤患者不利事件和并发症通常是罕见的。死亡率较低相关和情况系列。狭窄是最常记录并发症。心律失常在12个月内,以防系列范围从85%到92%的加权平均数为88%。两个心房扑动相关的报道自由从心律失常12个月。发现了一个显著的好处有利于消融在aad的自由从平均22个月的随访中心律失常。第二个随机对照试验报告更温和的影响有利于消融的自由心房扑动在老年患者的随访(平均年龄78岁)后的第一集颤振。死亡率是罕见的和最常见的房室传导阻滞和并发症血肿。相似,除了这些事件可能是由于AAD疗法(如甲状腺功能障碍)。从证据发现一项相关的研究英国国民健康保险制度视角的重要的局限性。决策模型表明,如果质量在生活的好处RFCA维护剩下的病人的一生的成本效益的RFCA显得清晰。研究结果在范围广泛的健壮替代的假设,7763年间7910磅每额外QALY很少不确定性。RFCA是不再认为是维护超过5年,RFCA是成本效益依赖于很多因素。成本效益的影响进行了探讨这些因素从23000到38000英镑不等每提升。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号