Assessing Early Adoption of Pulsed Field Ablation for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation Using Claims and Hospital Charge Data
Author(s)
Joe McGonigle, PhD1, Michelle Sweeny, M.Sc.2, Maria Castro, B.S.3, Michelle Edwards, MBA4.
1Sr. Principal, IQVIA, Eagan, MN, USA, 2IQVIA, Toronto, ON, Canada, 3IQVIA, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 4IQVIA, Orono, MN, USA.
1Sr. Principal, IQVIA, Eagan, MN, USA, 2IQVIA, Toronto, ON, Canada, 3IQVIA, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 4IQVIA, Orono, MN, USA.
OBJECTIVES: Pulsed Field Ablation (PFA) is an emerging technology for treating atrial fibrillation (AFib) with established benefits compared to thermal ablation technologies such as radiofrequency (RF) and cryoablation. This study aims to improve our limited understanding of early adoption trends for novel technologies such as PFA and compares claims versus hospital charge data for assessing device utilization.
METHODS: We analyzed US open medical claims and hospital charge data beginning in January 2024 corresponding to the launch of newly approved PFA devices. In each dataset the share of PFA within ablation procedures was assessed using procedural codes or text queries (for specific devices within hospital charge data). Patient, provider, and facility characteristics were also compared.
RESULTS: Most medical claims (76,249) included only a CPT code (due to the outpatient site of service) which is not specific for ablation modality. 10,191 claims included ICD-10 codes with a specific code for PFA visible from April 2024. The PFA share grew rapidly reaching 26% of all ablation procedures and 36% of procedures with a concomitant AFib diagnosis. Patient demographics were similar across ablation modalities. PFA procedures were more likely to be outpatient (54% vs. 6%) with electrophysiology more common as the provider specialty (67% vs. 21%). The Boston Scientific FARAPULSE™, Medtronic PulseSelect™ and J&J VARIPULSE™ PFA devices were identified within 38,863 hospital charge ablation records. PFA reached 30% of ablation procedures within 1 year after launch with FARAPULSE™ accounting for 83% share. Patient demographics were similar by ablation type while PFA was more commonly done in teaching hospitals (68% vs. 45%).
CONCLUSIONS: Both datasets showed rapid growth in adoption of PFA across all patient demographics. Charge data addressed significant limitations in coding specificity and identified distinct PFA products. Future studies can use this approach to monitor trends in AFib treatment and compare clinical and economic outcomes across technologies.
METHODS: We analyzed US open medical claims and hospital charge data beginning in January 2024 corresponding to the launch of newly approved PFA devices. In each dataset the share of PFA within ablation procedures was assessed using procedural codes or text queries (for specific devices within hospital charge data). Patient, provider, and facility characteristics were also compared.
RESULTS: Most medical claims (76,249) included only a CPT code (due to the outpatient site of service) which is not specific for ablation modality. 10,191 claims included ICD-10 codes with a specific code for PFA visible from April 2024. The PFA share grew rapidly reaching 26% of all ablation procedures and 36% of procedures with a concomitant AFib diagnosis. Patient demographics were similar across ablation modalities. PFA procedures were more likely to be outpatient (54% vs. 6%) with electrophysiology more common as the provider specialty (67% vs. 21%). The Boston Scientific FARAPULSE™, Medtronic PulseSelect™ and J&J VARIPULSE™ PFA devices were identified within 38,863 hospital charge ablation records. PFA reached 30% of ablation procedures within 1 year after launch with FARAPULSE™ accounting for 83% share. Patient demographics were similar by ablation type while PFA was more commonly done in teaching hospitals (68% vs. 45%).
CONCLUSIONS: Both datasets showed rapid growth in adoption of PFA across all patient demographics. Charge data addressed significant limitations in coding specificity and identified distinct PFA products. Future studies can use this approach to monitor trends in AFib treatment and compare clinical and economic outcomes across technologies.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-09, ISPOR Real-World Evidence Summit 2025, Tokyo, Japan
Value in Health Regional, Volume 49S (September 2025)
Code
RWD89
Topic Subcategory
Health & Insurance Records Systems
Disease
SDC: Cardiovascular Disorders (including MI, Stroke, Circulatory)