• 1. College of Pharmacy, Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China;
  • 2. Department of Pharmacy, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangzhou 510080, China;
ZHANGJian-ping, Email: tzhangjp@jnu.edu.cn
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Objective To systematically evaluate the pharmacoeconomic value of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) versus amiodarone in the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF), and to provide reference for treatment scheme selection, drug selection and the formulation of drug policy. Methods We searched databases including PubMed, The Cochrane Library, CNKI and CBM from 2000 to 2014 to collect pharmacoeconomic studies on RFA versus Amiodarone for treating AF. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. The cost-effectiveness of RFA and Amiodarone for AF was compared according to the cost, effectiveness, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results A total of three studies were included. The results of pharmacoeconomic evaluation showed that the ICERs for each study were $7 976 to $29 068, £7 763 to £27 745, and $59 194, respectively. According to country-specific willingness to pay thresholds, the ICER of each included study was acceptable. Conclusion Compared to Amiodarone, RFA is a cost-effective therapy for AF.

Citation: ZHONGDai-yun, LIUAi-jun, LUOChu-jun, LIUXiao-qi, ZHANGJian-ping. Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of Radiofrequency Ablation versus Amiodarone for Atrial Fibrillation. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2015, 15(9): 1018-1023. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.20150170 Copy

  • Previous Article

    Effectiveness and Safety of Spinal Manipulation for Low Back Pain or Neck Pain:An Overview of Systematic Reviews
  • Next Article

    Association between Toll like receptor 2 Gene I/D Polymorphism and Cancer Risk: A Meta-analysis