| Title |
A Cost-Effective Analysis of Systematically Using Mapping Systems During Catheter Ablation Procedures in Children and Teenagers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Pediatric Cardiology, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00246-018-1933-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Massimiliano Marini, Daniele Ravanelli, Fabrizio Guarracini, Maurizio Del Greco, Silvia Quintarelli, Anna Cima, Alessio Coser, Marta Martin, Aldo Valentini, Roberto Bonmassari |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an extended use of 3D non-fluoroscopic mapping systems (NMSs) during paediatric catheter ablation (CA) in an adult EP Lab. This study includes 58 consecutive patients (aged between 8 and 18) who underwent CA from March 2005 to February 2015. We compare the fluoroscopy data of two groups: group I, patients who underwent CA from 2005 to 2008 using only fluoroscopy, and group II, patients who underwent CA from 2008 to 2015 performed also using NMSs. Two cost-effectiveness analyses were carried out: the first method was based on the alpha value (AV), and the second one was based on the value of a statistical life (VSL). For both methods, a children's correction factor was also considered. The reduction cost estimated from all these methods was compared to the real additional cost of using NMSs. The use of an NMS during a CA procedure has led to an effective dose reduction (ΔE) of 2.8 milli-Sievert. All presented methods are based on parameters with a wide range of values. The use of an NMS, applying directly AV values or VSL values, is not cost-effective for most countries. Only considering the children's correction factor, the CA procedure using an NMS seems to be cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness of a systematic use of NMSs during CA procedures in children and teenagers remains a challenging task. A positive result depends on which value of AV or VSL is considered and if the children's correction factor is applied or not. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 8 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 25% |
| Researcher | 1 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 38% |
| Unknown | 5 | 63% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 June 2018.
All research outputs
#20,522,137
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Cardiology
#1,106
of 1,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#287,924
of 328,349 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Cardiology
#23
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,418 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,349 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.