Abstract:Background Cardiac ablation is a well-established treatment option for preventing atrial fibrillation (AF). While radiofrequency, cryo-energy, and laser energies are commonly employed in catheter ablation, they present the risk of potential damage to adjacent organs such as the oesophagus and phrenic nerve. To address these concerns, new technologies are being explored including pulsed field ablation (PFA), a non-thermal energy approach that employs high-voltage, short-duration pulses to selectively destroy target cells. Purpose The present analysis aims at: i) quantifying the short-term costs related to three ablation strategies for paroxysmal AF (PFA, radiofrequency ablation -RFA-, and cryo-balloon ablation -CRYO-), identify the cost drivers, and assess potential variations in resource consumption for each treatment alternative; ii) comparing the medium-term (1-year) economic implications of adopting the three alternatives, in terms of redo procedures (effectiveness) and complications (safety). Methods A cost-consequence model was developed to compare economic outcomes of the three ablation strategies for paroxysmal AF in the short- (during procedure) and medium-term (1-year). Resource consumption data during the procedure were collected by two European medical centres specialized in cardiac ablation (N=61 patients). For the medium-term analysis, costs were correlated to the effectiveness and safety of the procedures. The clinical data (i.e., redo and complication rates) considered in the model were retrieved from published literature. Costs and tariffs were collected from economic formularies of the respective hospitals. A scenario analysis was conducted to evaluate economic outcomes under various hypothetical difference in the prices of treatment kits. Results A significant difference was registered in terms of pre-procedural (mean±SD: 13.9±4.4 min for PFA, 20.1±7.6 min for CRYO and 20.5±7.7 min for RFA; ANOVA test p=0.003) and procedural time (skin-to-skin), favouring PFA over RFA and CRYO (53.6±26.8 min for PFA, 72.4±28.1 min for CRYO and 149.9±99.9 min for RFA; p<0.0001; Table 1). PFA was associated with lower procedural costs vs CRYO (-€400) and RFA (-€827). A similar economic advantage was observed in the medium-term (Table 2). The scenario analysis showed that PFA would be cost-saving vs CRYO (Δtotal costs ≤ 0) up to a price difference of +€881 (i.e., PFA kit is more expensive than CRYO kit), and similarly, up to a price difference of +€1,306 vs RFA. Above these thresholds, PFA would be considered cost-effective vs CRYO or RFA, due to its efficacy despite being more expensive. Conclusion In summary, PFA emerges as cost-effective or even cost-saving over CRYO and RFA, thanks to its faster execution, lower redo, and complications rate. Moreover, PFA time predictability would facilitate hospital planning. For a complete analysis, these benefits should be evaluated against the difference in acquisition costs among treatments.Procedural time by phase and techniqueCumulative savings per technique

Thirty‐day mortality risk in patients following radiofrequency and cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation across the entire nation of Poland: An 8‐year analysis from the National Health Fund of Poland

A Nationwide Study Based on over One Million AF Hospitalizations in 2017–2021

Predictors of short- and mid-term recurrence of atrial fibrillation after surgical radiofrequency ablation: a six-month transtelephonic electrocardiogram monitoring study

Surgical ablation, left atrial appendage occlusion or both? Nationwide registry analysis of cardiac surgery patients with underlying atrial fibrillation

Safety and acute efficacy of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation with pulsed field ablation vs thermal energy ablation: A meta-analysis of single proportions

Acute kidney injury after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: comparison between different energy sources

A cost-consequence analysis comparing three cardiac ablation strategies for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

A meta-analysis of the safety and efficacy of pulsed-field versus conventional thermal ablation for atrial fibrillation

Cryoballoon or Radiofrequency Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation Assessed by Continuous Monitoring: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Safety and Effectiveness of Pulsed Field Ablation to Treat Atrial Fibrillation: One-Year Outcomes From the MANIFEST-PF Registry

Predictors of atrial fibrillation early recurrence following cryoballoon ablation of pulmonary veins using statistical assessment and machine learning algorithms

Pulsed Field vs Conventional Thermal Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: Recurrent Atrial Arrhythmia Burden

Pulsed field versus cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation: a real-world observational study on procedural outcomes and efficacy

Efficacy and safety of pulsed-field versus conventional thermal ablation for atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation: risk factors for recurrence and long-term outcome

Radiofrequency Ablation, Cryotherapy Ablation, or Pulsed-Field Ablation to Treat Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation Unresponsive to Pharmacological Treatments: Interpreting Efficacy Through Reconstruction of Individual Patient Data From Randomized Trials

The Long-Term Results of Three Catheter Ablation Methods in Patients With Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: A 4-Year Follow-Up Study

A cost-consequence analysis comparing three distinct cardiac ablation strategies for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

Safety of pulsed field ablation in more than 17,000 patients with atrial fibrillation in the MANIFEST-17K study

Atrial Fibrillation Ablation During Hospitalization for Acute Heart Failure: Feasibility and Role of Pulsed Field Ablation

Observation of the Efficacy of Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation on Patients with Different Forms of Atrial Fibrillation