[Catheter ablation in hospitalized patients diagnosed with atrial fibrillation: real-world evidence from Italian health administrative databases.]

BACKGROUND Catheter ablation (CA) is recommended for treating paroxysmal/persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) as an alternative to antiarrhythmic drugs after failure or intolerance, or as first-line in limited cases. This study has described patients affected by AF and treated or not with CA, from the perspective of the Italian National Healthcare System (INHS). METHODS From the healthcare administrative data collected in the ReS (Ricerca e Salute) database, from 2016 to 2017, patients with main/secondary diagnosis of AF (index date) were split into two cohorts by presence/absence of CA procedure in the same hospital discharge form. The cohorts were characterized by gender, age, comorbidities. Consumptions (DDD) of antiarrhythmic, anticoagulant, antiplatelet and antihypertensive drugs, hospitalizations for AF, hemorrhagic stroke/intracranial hemorrhage, ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack, extra cranial major bleeding and heart failure, outpatient specialist care and healthcare costs paid by the INHS were assessed. RESULTS Out of >5 million inhabitants in 2016-2017, 33,940 patients were hospitalized with a diagnosis of AF, 990 (2.9%) were treated with CA in the same hospitalization (32,950 without CA). Patients with CA were mostly males (66.8%; 48.5% without CA). On average, they were aged (±SD) 65±12 (78±11 without CA) and affected by one comorbidity (≥3 in patients without CA). During the observational period, beta-blockers were the most prescribed to both cohorts, followed by antiarrhythmic drugs to patients with CA and by direct oral anticoagulants to those without. The 29.7% of subjects with CA were hospitalized due to relevant cardiovascular diagnoses during the previous year (7.4% without CA) and 93.4% in the first follow-up year (29.7% without CA). The 80-90% of cohorts resorted to the outpatient specialist care. Electrocardiograms and the cardiology visits were performed to the 62.5% and 31.1% of the cohort with CA (39.5% and 13% without CA) in the first follow-up year. On average, the INHS spent about € 4000 in the previous year and around € 10,000 in the first follow-up year per patient of both cohorts, while around € 3000 and € 4000 for a patient respectively with and without CA. At least half of the total costs were due to hospitalizations, followed by pharmaceuticals and outpatient specialist care. CONCLUSIONS This study confirm a post-CA suboptimal monitoring.