Pulsed-field ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: An indirect comparison of effectiveness among three proprietary devices conducted in the absence of randomized trials.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, pulsed-field ablation has been developed as an alternative to thermal ablation. Three devices are currently available: Farawave by Boston, PulseSelect by Medtronic, and Varipulse by Johnson. In the present report, we studied the outcomes at 12 months of these three devices using indirect comparisons. METHODS: A standard PubMed search was conducted that identified all studies evaluating these devices in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. The endpoint was freedom from arrhythmia recurrence. Kaplan-Meier curves were subjected to the IPDfromKM method that generated reconstructed patients. Standard time-to-event statistical testss (including heterogeneity assessment) were performed. RESULTS: Our analysis included 9 studies (8 single-arm and 1 randomized trial based on Farawave for a total of 1916 patients). A significant heterogeneity was found across the trials using Farawave because the outcomes found in the single-arm trials were better than those found in the randomized trial. Farawave (according exclusively to the results of the randomized trial), PulseSelect, and Varipulse showed a similar time-course of their respective outcomes with no significant difference. The single-arm trials using Farawave showed better outcomes than the randomized trial using Farawave and the pivotal trials using PulseSelect and Varipulse. DISCUSSION: Our study provided an updated overview of all the studies that have so far used pulsed-fileld ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

Relationship Between Price and Diagnosis-Related Group Tariff for Medical Devices Assessed by a Regional Health Technology Assessment Committee.

Introduction Medical devices (MDs) make up an important share of total in-hospital expenditure. At the level of individual patients, this share is represented by the ratio of the cost of MD incurred by the patient vs. the total cost of in-hospital care for the same patient. If tariffs rather than costs are considered, the denominator of this ratio is given by the diagnosis-related group (DRG) and the ratio is the cost of MD over DRG tariff. The objective of this paper is to present a retrospective analysis comparing the ratio of price vs. DRG tariff for a group of devices belonging to risk class III or active implantable. These devices are those assessed in the years 2020 and 2021 by two committees of the Tuscany region in Italy. Materials and methods The information on price and DRG was taken from the health technology assessment (HTA) reports concerning MDs evaluated by the two above-mentioned regional committees in the years 2020 and 2021. In these reports, the information on the cost-effectiveness ratio was reported for a subset of MDs. In all cases, a preliminary qualitative assessment was carried out to determine the presence or absence of a healthcare impact in the post-discharge phase. In these preliminary analyses, the perspective of NHS was adopted. Results Our analysis was focused on 24 devices of either class III or active implantable. According to our results, a wide variability was found in the ratios between device price and DRG associated with its use. This ratio ranged from a minimum of about 3% in the case of the Hyalobarrier gel (Nordic Pharma GmbH, Zürich, Switzerland) for post-surgical adhesion to a maximum of 132% in the case of the Neovasc Reducer (EPS Vascular AB, Viken, Sweden), a device indicated in the narrowed coronary sinus. Three devices, i.e., PuraStat (3-D Matrix, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan), Ascyrus Medical Dissection Stent (AMDS, CryoLife, Inc., Kennesaw, GA), and Tendyne (Abbott Cardiovascular, Plymouth, MN), were found to be priced more than the reimbursement tariff (i.e., ratio > 100%). Ratios between 50% and 100% were found in about half of the devices. From our preliminary assessment on the presence of a post-discharge impact, 15 devices out of 24 (62%) were found to determine a substantial impact, while the remaining nine (38%) did not. In general, when costs and benefits of a device do not extend beyond the patients' discharge, the presence of a ratio > 100% reliably suggests the conclusion that the device price needs to be reduced and/or the tariff needs to be increased. On the other hand, in cases where the device extends its impact beyond the patient's hospital stay, the decision of reducing price or increasing tariff becomes more complex, and so these adjustments cannot be determined unless more information on some critical aspects is made available. Conclusions Until the above-mentioned improvements do not take place, rational interventions on DRG are virtually unfeasible owing to this lack of critical information. On the other hand, it is also difficult to intervene on device prices, again owing to the lack of critical information.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: a case-matched cost-analysis between robot-assisted surgery and direct manual laparoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have reported a structured cost analysis of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP), and none have compared the relative costs between the robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) and the direct manual laparoscopy (DML) in this setting. The aim of the present study is to address this issue by comparing surgical outcomes and costs of RDP and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDP). METHODS: Eighty-eight RDP and 47 LDP performed between January 2008 and January 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Three comparable groups of 35 patients each (Si-RDP-group, Xi-RDP group, LDP-group) were obtained matching 1:1 the RDP-groups with the LDP-group. Overall costs, including overall variable costs (OVC) and fixed costs were compared using generalized linear regression model adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: The conversion rate was significantly lower in the Si-RDP-group and Xi-RDP-group: 2.9% and 0%, respectively, versus 14.3% in the LDP-group (p = 0.045). Although not statistically significant, the mean operative time was lower in Xi-RDP-group: 226 min versus 262 min for Si-RDP-group and 247 min for LDP-group. The overall post-operative complications rate and the length of hospital stay (LOS) were not significantly different between the three groups. In LDP-group, the LOS of converted cases was significantly longer: 15.6 versus 9.8 days (p = 0.039). Overall costs of LDP-group were significantly lower than RDP-groups, (p < 0.001). At multivariate analysis OVC resulted no longer statistically significantly different between LDP-group and Xi-RDP-group (p = 0.099), and between LDP-group and the RDP-groups when the spleen preservation was indicated (p = 0.115 and p = 0.261 for Si-RDP-group and Xi-RDP-group, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: RAS is more expensive than DML for DP because of higher acquisition and maintenance costs. The flattening of these differences considering only the variable costs, in a high-volume multidisciplinary center for RAS, suggests a possible optimization of the costs in this setting. RAS might be particularly indicated for minimally invasive DP when the spleen preservation is scheduled.

Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy with the da Vinci Xi: can the costs of advanced technology be offset by clinical advantages? A case-matched cost analysis versus open approach.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) has shown some advantages over open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) but few studies have reported a cost analysis between the two techniques. We conducted a structured cost-analysis comparing pancreatoduodenectomy performed with the use of the da Vinci Xi, and the traditional open approach, and considering healthcare direct costs associated with the intervention and the short-term post-operative course. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty RPD and 194 OPD performed between January 2011 and December 2020 by the same operator at our high-volume multidisciplinary center for robot-assisted surgery and for pancreatic surgery, were retrospectively analyzed. Two comparable groups of 20 patients (Xi-RPD-group) and 40 patients (OPD-group) were obtained matching 1:2 the RPD-group with the OPD-group. Perioperative data and overall costs, including overall variable costs (OVCs) and fixed costs, were compared. RESULTS: No difference was reported in mean operative time: 428 min for Xi-RPD-group versus 404 min for OPD, p = 0.212. The median overall length of hospital stay was significantly lower in the Xi-RPD-group: 10 days versus 16 days, p = 0.001. In the Xi-RPD-group, consumable costs were significantly higher (€6149.2 versus €1267.4, p < 0.001), while hospital stay costs were significantly lower: €5231.6 versus €8180 (p = 0.001). No significant differences were found in terms of OVCs: €13,483.4 in Xi-RPD-group versus €11,879.8 in OPD-group (p = 0.076). CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted surgery is more expensive because of higher acquisition and maintenance costs. However, although RPD is associated to higher material costs, the advantages of the robotic system associated to lower hospital stay costs and the absence of difference in terms of personnel costs thanks to the similar operative time with respect to OPD, make the OVCs of the two techniques no longer different. Hence, the higher costs of advanced technology can be partially compensated by clinical advantages, particularly within a high-volume multidisciplinary center for both robot-assisted and pancreatic surgery. These preliminary data need confirmation by further studies.