Costs of surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation in Ontario, Canada from 2006 to 2017
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: International guidelines currently recommend concomitant surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with AF undergoing cardiac surgery. However, a systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed no significant difference in mortality or stroke in patients who underwent surgical AF ablation compared with those who did not (moderate-quality evidence). METHODS: We estimated the Ontario-wide costs of surgical AF ablation between 2006 and 2017 using data from a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs, estimates of case volumes from Ontario Health Insurance Plan fee codes, the ongoing left atrial appendage occlusion study III trial (NCT01561651), institutional costs from large academic centers in Ontario, as well as professional fees based on the Ontario fee schedule. Device costs were obtained from Canadian industry data with expert input. RESULTS: We estimated the average extra cost of surgical AF ablation at $4,287 CAD (95% CI $4,113-4,619) per patient. Procedural costs (equipment costs and physician remuneration) comprise 82.2% of this, while smaller portions relate to the increased need for pacemaker (3.9%) and additional hospital length of stay (13.9%). Approximately 2,391 patients underwent surgical AF ablation between 2006 and 2017, corresponding to an estimated $10.2 million in incremental cost during that time span. CONCLUSION: Ontario taxpayers spend significant financial resources on surgical ablation of AF, a procedure lacking high-quality evidence demonstrating benefit in reducing mortality or stroke. Further large prospective studies examining clinically important outcomes are needed to justify its routine use in patient care and to guide allocation of healthcare funds.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".