Egyszerű nézet

dc.contributor.author Chun KRJ
dc.contributor.author Brugada J
dc.contributor.author Elvan A
dc.contributor.author Gellér, László Alajos
dc.contributor.author Busch M
dc.contributor.author Barrera A
dc.contributor.author Schilling RJ
dc.contributor.author Reynolds MR
dc.contributor.author Hokanson RB
dc.contributor.author Holbrook R
dc.contributor.author Brown B
dc.contributor.author Schluter M
dc.contributor.author Kuck KH
dc.contributor.author FIRE AND ICE Investigators
dc.date.accessioned 2018-08-10T06:33:52Z
dc.date.available 2018-08-10T06:33:52Z
dc.date.issued 2017
dc.identifier 85030689216
dc.identifier.citation pagination=e006043; journalVolume=6; journalIssueNumber=8; journalTitle=JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION;
dc.identifier.uri http://repo.lib.semmelweis.hu//handle/123456789/5766
dc.identifier.uri doi:10.1161/JAHA.117.006043
dc.description.abstract BACKGROUND: This study sought to assess payer costs following cryoballoon or radiofrequency current (RFC) catheter ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in the randomized FIRE AND ICE trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: A trial period analysis of healthcare costs evaluated the impact of ablation modality (cryoballoon versus RFC) on differences in resource use and associated payer costs. Analyses were based on repeat interventions, rehospitalizations, and cardioversions during the trial, with unit costs based on 3 national healthcare systems (Germany [euro], the United Kingdom [ pound], and the United States [$]). Total payer costs were calculated by applying standard unit costs to hospital stays, using International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision diagnoses and procedure codes that were mapped to country-specific diagnosis-related groups. Patients (N=750) randomized 1:1 to cryoballoon (n=374) or RFC (n=376) ablation were followed for a mean of 1.5 years. Resource use was lower in the cryoballoon than the RFC group (205 hospitalizations and/or interventions in 122 patients versus 268 events in 154 patients). The cost differences per patient in mean total payer costs during follow-up were euro640, pound364, and $925 in favor of cryoballoon ablation (P=0.012, 0.013, and 0.016, respectively). This resulted in trial period total cost savings of euro245 000, pound140 000, and $355 000. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with RFC ablation, cryoballoon ablation was associated with a reduction in resource use and payer costs. In all 3 national healthcare systems analyzed, this reduction resulted in substantial trial period cost savings, primarily attributable to fewer repeat ablations and a reduction in cardiovascular rehospitalizations with cryoballoon ablation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT01490814.
dc.relation.ispartof urn:issn:2047-9980
dc.title The Impact of Cryoballoon Versus Radiofrequency Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation on Healthcare Utilization and Costs: An Economic Analysis From the FIRE AND ICE Trial
dc.type Journal Article
dc.date.updated 2018-07-13T06:35:31Z
dc.language.rfc3066 en
dc.identifier.mtmt 3273115
dc.identifier.wos 000406948200019
dc.identifier.pubmed 28751544
dc.contributor.department SE/AOK/K/VAROSMAJOR_SZÍVÉRGYÓGY/Kardiológia Központ - Kardiológiai Tanszék [2017.10.31]
dc.contributor.institution Semmelweis Egyetem
dc.mtmt.swordnote Erratum in: The Impact of Cryoballoon Versus Radiofrequency Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation on Healthcare Utilization and Costs: An Economic Analysis From the FIRE AND ICE Trial. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017;6(9): e002230. doi:10.1161/JAHA.117.002230. PubMed PMID: 28916528; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5634240


Kapcsolódó fájlok:

A fájl jelenleg csak egyetemi IP címről érhető el.

Megtekintés/Megnyitás

Ez a rekord az alábbi gyűjteményekben szerepel:

Egyszerű nézet