Observational studyClinical cardiology2025
Real-World Health Care Resource Utilization and Costs Associated With First-Line Dronedarone Versus First-Line Ablation in Adults With Atrial Fibrillation.
Observational study in Clinical cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Early Rhythm Versus Rate Control in Older Adults With New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.Journal of arrhythmia · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRhythm control therapy with antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) or catheter ablation is recommended for treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). The impact of first-line AAD therapy (including dronedarone) or ablation on health care resource utilization (HCRU) is unclear.
methodsOptum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart Database (January 1, 2012 to January 31, 2022) was used to assess US adults with AF (within 1 year) and no prior AADs who received first-line dronedarone or first-line ablation (including non-dronedarone AADs then ablation within 90 days) using a comparative cohort design. Dronedarone and ablation cohorts were propensity score matched. HCRU and per-patient per-month (PPPM) payer costs were compared over 24-months' follow-up. Sensitivity analyses assessing first-line ablation with no prior AADs were conducted.
resultsPost-matching, dronedarone and ablation cohorts (n = 1440) were similar. Event rate ratios (ERR; [95% CI]) for inpatient (0.85 [0.77-0.93]), any outpatient (0.95 [0.94-0.96]), or emergency room (0.91 [0.85-0.97]) visits, or atrial tachyarrhythmia (ATA)/AF-related procedures (0.72 [0.71-0.74]) were significantly lower with first-line dronedarone versus ablation (all p < 0.01). Dronedarone was associated with reduced mean PPPM costs for total HCRU (-$2603), any outpatient visits (-$2401), and ATA/AF-related procedures (-$1880) versus ablation (all p < 0.01). In contrast to the primary analysis, sensitivity analyses showed no significant difference in ERR for all-cause inpatient or any outpatient visits, but dronedarone remained associated with significantly lower mean PPPM total costs.
conclusionOver 24-months' follow-up in patients with AF, first-line dronedarone was associated with comparable rates of inpatient/outpatient visits, and lower total payer costs compared with an ablation-based approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.