Real-World Cost-Effectiveness of Pulmonary Vein Isolation for Atrial Fibrillation: A Target Trial Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Randomized controlled trials of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for treating atrial fibrillation (AF) have proven the procedure's efficacy. Studies assessing its empirical cost-effectiveness outside randomized trial settings are lacking. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of PVI versus medical therapy for AF. METHODS: We followed a target trial approach using the Swiss-AF cohort, a prospective observational cohort study that enrolled patients with AF between 2014 and 2017. Resource utilization and cost information were collected through claims data. Quality of life was measured with EQ-5D-3L utilities. We estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) from the perspective of the Swiss statutory health insurance system. RESULTS: Patients undergoing PVI compared with medical therapy had a 5-year overall survival advantage with a hazard ratio of 0.75 (95% CI 0.46-1.21; P = .69) and a 19.8% SD improvement in quality of life (95% CI 15.5-22.9; P < .001), at an incremental cost of 29 604 Swiss francs (CHF) (95% CI 16 354-42 855; P < .001). The estimated ICER was CHF 158 612 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained within a 5-year time horizon. Assuming similar health effects and costs over 5 additional years changed the ICER to CHF 82 195 per QALY gained. Results were robust to the sensitivity analyses performed. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that PVI might be a cost-effective intervention within the Swiss healthcare context in a 10-year time horizon, but unlikely to be so at 5 years, if a willingness-to-pay threshold of CHF 100 000 per QALY gained is assumed. Given data availability, we find target trial designs are a valuable tool for assessing the cost-effectiveness of healthcare interventions outside of randomized controlled trial settings.
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 | 0.034 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".