Economic Evaluation of Complete Revascularization for Patients with Multivessel Disease Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the cost-effectiveness of complete revascularization at index admission compared with infarct-related artery (IRA) treatment only, in patients with multivessel disease undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (P-PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Methods: An economic evaluation of a multicenter randomized trial was conducted, comparing complete revascularization at index admission to IRA-only P-PCI in patients with multivessel disease (12-month follow-up). Overall hospital costs (costs for P-PCI procedure(s), hospital length of stay, and any subsequent re-admissions) were estimated. Outcomes were major adverse cardiac events (MACEs, a composite of all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction, heart failure, and ischemia-driven revascularization) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) derived from the three-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire. Multiple imputation was undertaken. The mean incremental cost and effect, with associated 95% confidence intervals, the incremental costeffectiveness ratio, and the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve were estimated. Results: On the basis of 296 patients, the mean incremental overall hospital cost for complete revascularization was estimated to be -£215.96 (-£1390.20 to £958.29), compared with IRAonly, with a per-patient mean reduction in MACEs of 0.170 (0.044 to 0.296) and a QALY gain of 0.011 (À0.019 to 0.041). According to the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, the probability of complete revascularization being cost-effective was estimated to be 72.0% at a willingness-to-pay threshold value of £20,000 per QALY. Conclusions: Complete revascularization at index admission was estimated to be more effective (in terms of MACEs and QALYs) and cost-effective (overall costs were estimated to be lower and complete revascularization thereby dominated IRA-only). There was, however, some uncertainty associated with this decision.

Occurence of First and Recurrent Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events With Liraglutide Treatment Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and High Risk of Cardiovascular Events

“…Effectively treating patients to reduce recurrent events could reduce time spent in the hospital, and it is for such reasons that recurrent events have been included in some recent cost-effectiveness studies. 18,19 Limitations This analysis has limitations. Analyses of recurrent events may overestimate the contribution of patients experiencing MACE early in a trial, 8 cannot differentiate between cardioprotective mechanisms of a drug that may differ between first and subsequent events 16 and do not account for the decreasing compliance that is nominally reported as CV outcomes trials progress.…”

An International Comparison of EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L for Use in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

“…In this trial, 3L was administered at baseline and then 2 months and 11 months post-randomization. 8) CvLPRIT: The CvLPRIT (Complete-compared to Lesion-Only Revascularisation for Myocardial Infarction) trial 30,31 randomized patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with bystander stenosis to an infarctonly strategy (only treat the blocked artery that caused the heart attack) versus complete revascularization (treat the blocked artery and also treat any narrowed arteries that may cause heart attacks in future). In this trial, 3L was administered immediately before discharge and at 12 months postdischarge.…”

Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events: An Inevitable Outcome of ST-elevation myocardial infarction? A Literature Review

“…-Five studies that identified themselves as RCT and eight other studies that identified themselves as clinical trials [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19].…”