Daniels, Melanie R.

Background Women with atrial fibrillation (AF) demonstrate more AF‐related symptoms and worse quality of life (QOL). Whether increased use of ablation in women reduces sex‐related QOL differences is unknown. Sex‐related outcomes for ablation versus drug therapy was a prespecified analysis in the CABANA (Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation) trial. Methods and Results Symptoms were assessed periodically over 60 months with the Mayo AF‐Specific Symptom Inventory (MAFSI) frequency score, and QOL was assessed with the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life (AFEQT) summary and component scores. Women had lower baseline QOL scores than men (mean AFEQT scores 55.9 and 65.6, respectively). Ablation patients improved more than drug therapy patients with similar treatment effect by sex: AFEQT 12‐month mean adjusted treatment difference in women 6.1 points (95% CI, 3.5–8.6) and men 4.9 points (95% CI, 3.0–6.9). Participants with baseline AFEQT summary scores <70 had greater QOL improvement, with a mean treatment difference at 12 months of 7.6 points for women (95% CI, 4.3–10.9) and 6.4 points for men (95% CI, 3.3–9.4). The mean adjusted difference in MAFSI frequency score between women randomized to ablation versus drug therapy at 12 months was −2.5 (95% CI, −3.4 to −1.6); for men, the difference was −1.3 (95% CI, −2.0 to −0.6). Conclusions Compared with drug therapy for AF, ablation resulted in more QOL improvement in both sexes, primarily driven by improvements in those with lower baseline QOL. Ablation did not eliminate the AF‐related QOL gap between women and men. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT00911508.

Background: In the CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation), catheter ablation did not significantly reduce the primary end point of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest compared with drug therapy by intention-to-treat, but did improve the quality of life and freedom from atrial fibrillation recurrence. In the heart failure subgroup, ablation improved both survival and quality of life. Cost-effectiveness was a prespecified CABANA secondary end point. Methods: Medical resource use data were collected for all CABANA patients (N=2204). Costs for hospital-based care were assigned using prospectively collected bills from US patients (n=1171); physician and medication costs were assigned using the Medicare Fee Schedule and National Average Drug Acquisition Costs, respectively. Extrapolated life expectancies were estimated using age-based survival models. Quality-of-life adjustments were based on EQ-5D–based utilities measured during the trial. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, comparing ablation with drug therapy on the basis of intention-to-treat, and assessed from the US health care sector perspective. Results: Costs in the first 3 months averaged $20 794±SD 1069 higher with ablation compared with drug therapy. The cumulative within-trial 5-year cost difference was $19 245 (95% CI, $11 360–$27 170) and the lifetime mean cost difference was $15 516 (95% CI, –$2963 to $35,512) higher with ablation than with drug therapy. The drug therapy arm accrued an average of 12.5 life-years (LYs) and 10.7 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). For the ablation arm, the corresponding estimates were 12.6 LYs and 11.0 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $57 893 per QALY gained, with 75% of bootstrap replications yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio < $100 000 per QALY gained. With no quality-of-life/utility adjustments, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $183 318 per LY gained. Conclusions: Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation was economically attractive compared with drug therapy in the CABANA Trial overall at present benchmarks for health care value in the United States on the basis of projected incremental QALYs but not LYs alone.

Abstract Aims Influence of atrial fibrillation (AF) type on outcomes seen with catheter ablation vs. drug therapy is incompletely understood. This study assesses the impact of AF type on treatment outcomes in the Catheter Ablation vs. Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial (CABANA). Methods and results CABANA randomized 2204 patients ≥65 years old or &lt;65 with at least one risk factor for stroke to catheter ablation or drug therapy. Of these, 946 (42.9%) had paroxysmal AF (PAF), 1042 (47.3%) had persistent AF (PersAF), and 215 (9.8%) had long-standing persistent AF (LSPAF) at baseline. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Symptoms were measured with the Mayo AF-Specific Symptom Inventory (MAFSI), and quality of life was measured with the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life (AFEQT). Comparisons are reported by intention to treat. Compared with drug therapy alone, catheter ablation produced a 19% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint for PAF {adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.81 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.50, 1.30]}, and a 17% relative reduction for PersAF (aHR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.56, 1.22). For LSPAF, the ablation relative effect was a 7% reduction (aHR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.36, 2.44). Ablation was more effective than drug therapy at reducing first AF recurrence in all AF types: by 51% for PAF (aHR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.39, 0.62), by 47% for PersAF (aHR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.43,0.65), and by 36% for LSPAF (aHR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41,1.00). Ablation was associated with greater improvement in symptoms, with the mean difference between groups in the MAFSI frequency score favouring ablation over 5 years of follow-up in all subgroups: PAF had a clinically significant −1.9-point difference (95% CI: −1.2 to −2.6); PersAF a −0.9 difference (95% CI: −0.2 to −1.6); LSPAF a clinically significant difference of −1.6 points (95% CI: −0.1 to −3.1). Ablation was also associated with greater improvement in quality of life in all subgroups, with the AFEQT overall score in PAF patients showing a clinically significant 5.3-point improvement (95% CI: 3.3 to 7.3) over drug therapy alone over 5 years of follow-up, PersAF a 1.7-point difference (95% CI: 0.0 to 3.7), and LSPAF a 3.1-point difference (95% CI: -1.6 to 7.8). Conclusion Prognostic treatment effects of catheter ablation compared with drug therapy on the primary and major secondary clinical endpoints did not differ consequentially by AF subtype. With regard to decreases in AF recurrence and improving quality of life, ablation was more effective than drug therapy in all three AF type subgroups. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00911508