Economic Outcomes With Anatomical Versus Functional Diagnostic Testing for Coronary Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: PROMISE (PROspective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) found that initial use of at least 64-slice multidetector computed tomography angiography (CTA) versus functional diagnostic testing strategies did not improve clinical outcomes in stable symptomatic patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) requiring noninvasive testing. OBJECTIVE: To conduct an economic analysis for PROMISE (a major secondary aim of the study). DESIGN: Prospective economic study from the U.S. perspective. Comparisons were made according to the intention-to-treat principle, and CIs were calculated using bootstrap methods. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01174550). SETTING: 190 U.S. centers. PATIENTS: 9649 U.S. patients enrolled in PROMISE between July 2010 and September 2013. Median follow-up was 25 months. MEASUREMENTS: Technical costs of the initial (outpatient) testing strategy were estimated from Premier Research Database data. Hospital-based costs were estimated using hospital bills and Medicare cost-charge ratios. Physician fees were taken from the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. Costs were expressed in 2014 U.S. dollars, discounted at 3% annually, and estimated out to 3 years using inverse probability weighting methods. RESULTS: The mean initial testing costs were $174 for exercise electrocardiography; $404 for CTA; $501 to $514 for pharmacologic and exercise stress echocardiography, respectively; and $946 to $1132 for exercise and pharmacologic stress nuclear testing, respectively. Mean costs at 90 days were $2494 for the CTA strategy versus $2240 for the functional strategy (mean difference, $254 [95% CI, -$634 to $906]). The difference was associated with more revascularizations and catheterizations (4.25 per 100 patients) with CTA use. After 90 days, the mean cost difference between the groups out to 3 years remained small. LIMITATION: Cost weights for test strategies were obtained from sources outside PROMISE. CONCLUSION: Computed tomography angiography and functional diagnostic testing strategies in patients with suspected CAD have similar costs through 3 years of follow-up. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Health-related quality of life outcomes with prasugrel among medically managed non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome patients: Insights from the Targeted Platelet Inhibition to Clarify the Optimal Strategy to Medically Manage Acute Coronary Syndromes (TRILOGY ACS) trial.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have assessed treatment effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treated without revascularization. The TRILOGY ACS trial randomized patients with ACS to either prasugrel or clopidogrel therapy plus aspirin. Outcomes showed a complex pattern suggestive of late benefits with respect to repeat clinical events and benefits confined to patients who underwent angiography. Here, we examine the HRQoL correlates of these patterns. METHODS: HRQoL was measured at baseline and 3, 12, and 24 months or end of study (EOS) in 7243 patients aged <75 years using the EuroQol 3-level, group 5-dimension index (EQ-5D). Linear mixed effects models for repeated measures were used to examine treatment differences in HRQoL overall, stratified by angiography status, and among patients who did and did not have non-fatal events. RESULTS: No baseline differences in HRQoL were seen between patients randomized to prasugrel (n=3620) or clopidogrel (n=3623). At 24 months, remaining patients assigned to prasugrel (n=1450) vs. clopidogrel (n=1443) had higher EQ-5D index scores (86.4 vs. 84.9, P=.01). Mixed effects models found no difference in EQ-5D scores among prasugrel and clopidogrel patients overall across subgroups stratified by angiography status. However, among patients with non-fatal clinical events, patients on clopidogrel reported a larger decrement in HRQoL than patients on prasugrel (79.5±18.1 vs. 80.6±18.0; P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there was no difference in HRQoL outcomes among patients receiving prasugrel vs. clopidogrel. However, the differential effects of the treatments among patients with non-fatal events require further investigation.

Quality-of-life outcomes with coronary artery bypass graft surgery in ischemic left ventricular dysfunction: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The STICH (Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure) trial compared a strategy of routine coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with guideline-based medical therapy for patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction. OBJECTIVE: To describe treatment-related quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes, a major prespecified secondary end point in the STICH trial. DESIGN: Randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00023595). SETTING: 99 clinical sites in 22 countries. PATIENTS: 1212 patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.35 or less and coronary artery disease. INTERVENTION: Random assignment to medical therapy alone (602 patients) or medical therapy plus CABG (610 patients). MEASUREMENTS: A battery of QOL instruments at baseline (98.9% complete) and 4, 12, 24, and 36 months after randomization (collection rates were 80% to 89% of those eligible). The principal prespecified QOL measure was the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, which assesses the effect of heart failure on patients' symptoms, physical function, social limitations, and QOL. RESULTS: The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score was consistently higher (more favorable) in the CABG group than in the medical therapy group by 4.4 points (95% CI, 1.8 to 7.0 points) at 4 months, 5.8 points (CI, 3.1 to 8.6 points) at 12 months, 4.1 points (CI, 1.2 to 7.1 points) at 24 months, and 3.2 points (CI, 0.2 to 6.3 points) at 36 months. Sensitivity analyses to account for the effect of mortality on follow-up QOL measurement were consistent with the primary findings. LIMITATION: Therapy was not masked. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of symptomatic high-risk patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction and multivessel coronary artery disease, CABG plus medical therapy produced clinically important improvements in quality of life compared with medical therapy alone over 36 months. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Levosimendan in patients with reduced left ventricular function undergoing isolated coronary or valve surgery.

OBJECTIVE: In the Levosimendan in Patients with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction Undergoing Cardiac Surgery Requiring Cardiopulmonary Bypass (LEVO-CTS) trial, no differences in clinical outcomes were observed between levosimendan and placebo in a broad population of patients undergoing cardiac surgery. In previous studies, the benefits of levosimendan were most clearly evident in patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. In a prespecified analysis of LEVO-CTS, we compared treatment-related outcomes and costs across types of cardiac surgical procedures. METHODS: Overall, 563 (66.4%) patients underwent isolated CABG, 97 (11.4%) isolated valve, and 188 (22.2%) combined CABG/valve surgery. Outcomes included the co-primary 4-component composite (30-day mortality, 30-day renal replacement, 5-day myocardial infarction, or 5-day mechanical circulatory support), the 2-component composite (30-day mortality or 5-day mechanical circulatory support), 90-day mortality, low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS), and 30-day medical costs. RESULTS: The 4- and 2-component outcomes were not significantly different with levosimendan and placebo in patients undergoing CABG (15.2% vs 19.3% and 7.8% vs 10.4%), valve (49.0% vs 33.3% and 22.4% vs 2.1%), or combined procedures (39.6% vs 35.9% and 24.0% vs 19.6%). Ninety-day mortality was lower with levosimendan in isolated CABG (2.1% vs 7.9%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-0.64), but not significantly different in valve (8.3% vs 2.0%; HR, 4.10; 95% CI, 0.46-36.72) or combined procedures (10.4% vs 7.6%; HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.53-3.64; interaction P = .011). LCOS (12.0% vs 22.1%; odds ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.30-0.76; interaction P = .118) was significantly lower in levosimendan-treated patients undergoing isolated CABG. Excluding study drug costs, median and mean 30-day costs were $53,707 and $65,852 for levosimendan and $54,636 and $67,122 for placebo, with a 30-day mean difference (levosimendan - placebo) of -$1270 (bootstrap 95% CI, -$8722 to $6165). CONCLUSIONS: Levosimendan was associated with lower 90-day mortality and LCOS in patients undergoing isolated CABG, but not in those undergoing isolated valve or combined CABG/valve procedures.

Quality of life and economic outcomes with surgical ventricular reconstruction in ischemic heart failure: results from the Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgical ventricular reconstruction (SVR) is used in conjunction with coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) to improve left ventricular function and clinical outcomes in selected patients with ischemic heart failure. The impact of SVR on quality of life (QOL) and medical costs is unknown. METHODS: We compared CABG plus SVR with CABG alone in 1,000 patients with ischemic heart failure, an anterior wall scar, and a left ventricular ejection fraction or=92% complete. Cost data were collected on 196 (98%) of 200 patients enrolled in the United States. RESULTS: Heart-failure-related QOL outcomes did not differ between the 2 treatment strategies out to 3 years (median Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores for CABG alone and CABG plus SVR, respectively: baseline 53 versus 54, P = .53; 3 years 85 versus 84, P = .89). There were no treatment-related differences in other QOL measures. In the US patients, total index hospitalization costs averaged over $14,500 higher for CABG plus SVR (P = .004) due primarily to 4.2 extra postoperative, high-intensity care days in the hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of SVR to CABG in patients with ischemic heart failure did not improve QOL but significantly increased health care costs.

Acute and 1-Year Hospitalization Costs for Acute Myocardial Infarction Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Results From the TRANSLATE-ACS Registry.

Background Hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (MI) in the United States is both common and expensive, but those features alone provide little insight into cost-saving opportunities. Methods and Results To understand the cost drivers during hospitalization for acute MI and in the following year, we prospectively studied 11 969 patients with acute MI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention at 233 US hospitals (2010-2013) from the TRANSLATE-ACS (Treatment With ADP Receptor Inhibitors: Longitudinal Assessment of Treatment Patterns and Events After Acute Coronary Syndrome) registry. Baseline costs were collected in a random subset (n=4619 patients, 54% ST-segment-elevation MI [STEMI]), while follow-up costs out to 1 year were collected for all patients. The mean index length of stay was 3.1 days (for both STEMI and non-STEMI) and mean intensive care unit length of stay was 1.2 days (1.4 days for STEMI and 1.0 days for non-STEMI). Index hospital costs averaged $18 931 ($19 327 for STEMI, $18 465 for non-STEMI), with 45% catheterization laboratory-related and 20% attributable to postprocedure hospital stay. Patient factors, including severity of illness and extent of coronary disease, and hospital characteristics, including for profit status and geographic region, identified significant variations in cost. Intensive care was used for 53% of non-STEMI and increased costs by $3282. Postdischarge 1-year costs averaged $8037, and 48% of patients were rehospitalized (half within 2 months and 57% with a cardiovascular diagnosis). Conclusions While much of the cost of patients with acute MI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention is probably not modifiable by the care team, cost reductions are still possible through quality-preserving practice efficiencies, such as need-based use rather than routine use of intensive care unit for patients with stable non-STEMI. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00097591.

Long-term economic outcomes associated with intensive versus moderate lipid-lowering therapy in coronary artery disease: results from the Treating to New Targets (TNT) Trial.

BACKGROUND: In 10,001 patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) enrolled in the Treating to New Targets (TNT) trial, 80 mg/d of atorvastatin (high-dose regimen) reduced the composite primary end point of death from CAD, nonfatal myocardial infarction, resuscitation from cardiac arrest, or stroke by 22% relative to 10 mg/d (low-dose regimen). METHODS: We performed an economic analysis of this trial from the US perspective using hospital bills and Medicare physician fees to estimate costs for cardiovascular hospitalizations in all US patients (n = 5,308). Atorvastatin costs were assigned using a discounted average wholesale price. Cost-effectiveness was calculated as the within-trial incremental cost required to prevent one primary end point event with high-dose atorvastatin. RESULTS: During a mean 4.9-year follow-up, the high-dose arm had fewer potential end point cardiovascular hospitalizations (35% vs 41%, P < .001) and revascularization procedures (16% vs 22%, P < .001). The high-dose regimen was $1 per day more expensive. At the end of 5 years, cumulative incremental cost for the high-dose arm was $252 (95% CI-$722 to +$1,276). With an absolute reduction in the primary end point of 2.8 per 100 treated with the high-dose regimen, the cost to prevent one additional primary end point event was $8,964. CONCLUSION: High-dose atorvastatin treatment of 5 years had only a small net incremental cost because of reduced complications and procedures. The cost to prevent one additional primary end point event with high-dose therapy was similar to that for drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in stable CAD and for early invasive versus early conservative therapy in acute coronary syndromes.

Economic and Quality-of-Life Outcomes of Natriuretic Peptide-Guided Therapy for Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The GUIDE-IT (GUIDing Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure) trial prospectively compared the efficacy of an N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP)-guided heart failure treatment strategy (target NT-proBNP level <1,000 pg/ml) with optimal medical therapy alone in high-risk patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. When the study was stopped for futility, 894 patients had been enrolled. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess treatment-related quality-of-life (QOL) and economic outcomes in the GUIDE-IT trial. METHODS: The authors prospectively collected a battery of QOL instruments at baseline and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months post-randomization (collection rates 90% to 99% of those eligible). The principal pre-specified QOL measures were the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) Overall Summary Score and the Duke Activity Status Index (DASI). Cost data were collected for 735 (97%) U.S. RESULTS: Baseline variables were well balanced in the 446 patients randomized to the NT-proBNP-guided therapy and 448 to usual care. Both the KCCQ and the DASI improved over the first 6 months, but no evidence was found for a strategy-related difference (mean difference [biomarker-guided - usual care] at 24 months of follow-up 2.0 for DASI [95% confidence interval (CI): -1.3 to 5.3] and 1.1 for KCCQ [95% CI: -3.7 to 5.9]). Total winsorized costs averaged $5,919 higher in the biomarker-guided strategy (95% CI: -$1,795, +$13,602) over 15-month median follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy of NT-proBNP-guided HF therapy had higher total costs and was not more effective than usual care in improving QOL outcomes in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction. (Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment [GUIDE-IT]; NCT01685840).

Impact of rate-modulated pacing on quality of life and exercise capacity--evidence from the Advanced Elements of Pacing Randomized Controlled Trial (ADEPT).

BACKGROUND: Ninety-nine percent of pacemakers implanted in the United States include an option for rate modulation. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether dual-chamber rate-modulated pacing, when compared with dual-chamber pacing alone, improved quality of life. METHODS: This was a single-blind randomized controlled trial comparing dual-chamber with rate-modulated dual-chamber pacing. Patients were enrolled between January 12, 2000, and January 10, 2002, with 1-year follow-up ending December 19, 2002. The study was a U.S. multicenter trial, with 95 sites participating. All patients received a rate modulation-capable dual-chamber pacemaker for standard indications. Patients were screened with an exercise test (Chronotropic Assessment Exercise Protocol) 1 month later. One thousand two hundred seventy-three patients were enrolled; 401 proved ineligible, and 872 (68%) made up the randomized patient cohort. Randomized patients had a mean age of 71 years, 64% were men, and 64% had sinus node dysfunction. Randomization was in a factorial design to (1) dual-chamber rate-modulated pacing versus dual-chamber pacing and (2) automatic mode switching versus no automatic mode switching. The present report is limited to the comparison of rate modulation with no rate modulation (DDDR vs. DDD). The primary endpoint was the score on the Specific Activity Scale, an activity-based cardiovascular disease-specific instrument at 1 year. Secondary endpoints included 6-month treadmill time and additional cardiovascular disease-specific, and generic health-related quality-of-life instruments at 1 year. RESULTS: At 6 months, patients with rate modulation had a higher peak exercise heart rate (rate modulation 113.3 +/- 19.6, no rate modulation 101.1 +/- 21.1; P <.0001). Total exercise time was not different between groups. At 1 year, there were no significant differences between groups with respect to Specific Activity Scale or the secondary quality-of-life endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that rate modulation is ineffective in improving the functional status or quality of life of patients with a bradycardia indication for dual-chamber pacing.

How Reliable are Patient-Reported Rehospitalizations? Implications for the Design of Future Practical Clinical Studies.

BACKGROUND: Longitudinal clinical investigations often rely on patient reports to screen for postdischarge adverse outcomes events, yet few studies have examined the accuracy of such patient reports. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) in the TRANSLATE-ACS study were asked during structured interviews at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months postdischarge to report any rehospitalizations. The accuracy of patient-reported rehospitalizations within 1 year of postdischarge was determined using claims-based medical bill validation as the reference standard. The cumulative incidence of rehospitalizations was compared when identified by patient report versus medical bills. Patients were categorized by the accuracy in reporting events (accurate, under-, or over- reporters) and characteristics were compared between groups. Among 10 643 MI patients, 4565 (43%) reported 7734 rehospitalizations. The sensitivity and positive predictive value of patient-reported rehospitalizations were low at 67% and 59%, respectively. A higher cumulative incidence of rehospitalization was observed when identified by patient report versus medical bills (43% vs 37%; P<0.001). Overall, 18% of patients over-reported and 10% under-reported the number of hospitalizations. Compared with accurate reporters, under-reporters were more likely to be older, female, African American, unemployed, or a non-high-school graduate, and had greater prevalence of clinical comorbidities such as diabetes and past cardiovascular disease. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of patient-reported rehospitalizations was low with patients both under- and over-reporting events. Longitudinal clinical research studies need additional mechanisms beyond patient report to accurately identify rehospitalization events. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01088503.

Development and validation of a simple model to predict severe coronary artery disease after myocardial infarction: potential impact on cardiac catheterization use in the United States and Canada.

BACKGROUND: Improved patient selection may optimize the efficiency of cardiac catheterization in both high- and low-rate regions. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a clinical model for predicting high-risk coronary artery disease (CAD) after myocardial infarction (MI) and to examine the model's potential impact on the use rate of both US and Canadian catheterization practices. METHODS AND RESULTS: By the use of baseline clinical variables from 1122 patients in the angiographic substudy of the Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Arteries in Acute Coronary Syndromes (GUSTO-1) trial, we developed a model that was predictive of severe CAD (left main or triple-vessel disease). The final model, which included prior MI, age, sex, hyperlipidemia, and decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (C-index = 0.70), was externally validated in 781 patients in the GUSTO IIb trial. Although the probability of severe CAD predicted 5-year survival, the frequency of catheterization in both Canada and the United States bore no relationship to severe CAD risk in the GUSTO-1 trial. By use of the model, we estimated that as much as 15% of US catheterizations from both GUSTO-1 and GUSTO IIb might have been avoided, without significantly compromising the number of patients with severe CAD who were identified (sensitivity = 0.94). By applying the model to Canadian practices, an additional 30 cases of severe CAD might have been identified per every 1000 catheterizations performed, without increasing the catheterization rate. CONCLUSIONS: The likelihood of severe CAD after ST-elevation MI may be predicted from simple baseline clinical variables. The use of a severe CAD predictive model to guide patient selection might enhance the cost-effectiveness of both aggressive and conservative catheterization practices.

Impact of different patterns of invasive care on quality of life outcomes in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome: results from the GUSTO-IIb Canada-United States substudy.

BACKGROUND: Comparing American and Canadian practice patterns and outcomes offers a natural experiment to examine the relative benefits of aggressive versus conservative management of coronary artery disease. In a prospective substudy of the Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries IIb (GUSTO-IIb) trial, differences in the management of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome, and the associated impact on quality of life (QOL) outcomes, were examined in the two countries. METHODS AND RESULTS: The patient population, selected randomly from the parent trial population, comprised 390 Canadian and 1122 American patients for whom both baseline and one-year data were available. Validated instruments were used to assess QOL, including the Duke Activity Status Index (DASI) and scales from the SF-36 questionnaire. At baseline, American patients had significantly higher cardiac catheterization rates (83% versus 45%), percutaneous coronary intervention rates (39% versus 24%) and coronary bypass surgery rates (19% versus 12%) than did Canadian patients, respectively. However, at one year, Canadian coronary bypass surgery rates were at par with those in the United States (24% versus 26%, respectively). At baseline, the mean DASI score was 24.6 among Canadian patients and 23.4 among American patients (P=0.14). At one year, neither cohort reported any significant change in functional scores and there was no intercountry difference in DASI scores, even after accounting for baseline risk. Canadian patients had significantly worse mental health scores than American patients at baseline (mean score 71.6 versus 75.4, respectively; P=0.02), but by one year, Canadian patients had better scores (mean score 80.1 versus 76.2, respectively; P=0.01). After adjusting for baseline characteristics, Canadian patients continued to report better mental health status scores than did American patients (4 points higher, P<0.01). When asked to rate their health state on a scale from 0 to 100, both cohorts reported similar values at baseline. However, after adjusting for baseline characteristics, American patients' perception of their health state was better than that reported by Canadians (3 points higher, P<0.01). CONCLUSION: Despite higher rates of invasive procedures in the American cohort, one-year QOL outcomes in the cohort were similar to those in the more conservatively managed Canadian cohort. These results suggest that routine cardiac catheterization and increased procedure use may be associated with diminishing marginal returns with respect to improving QOL outcomes among patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes.

Quality-of-life outcomes with a disodium EDTA chelation regimen for coronary disease: results from the trial to assess chelation therapy randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The National Institutes of Health.funded Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) randomized 1708 stablecoronary disease patients aged .50 years who were .6 months post.myocardial infarction (2003.2010) to 40 infusions ofa multicomponent EDTA chelation solution or placebo. Chelation reduced the primary composite end point of mortality,recurrent myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for angina (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95%confidence interval, 0.69.0.99; P=0.035). METHODS AND RESULTS: In a randomly selected subset of 911 patients, we prospectively collected a battery of quality-of-life(QOL) instruments at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months after randomization. The prespecified primary QOL measures were the Duke Activity Status Index (Table I in the Data Supplement) and the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 Mental Health Inventory-5. All comparisons were by intention to treat. Baseline clinical and QOL variables were well balanced in the 451 patients randomized to chelation and in the 460 patients randomized to placebo. The Duke Activity Status Index improved in both groups during the first 6 months of therapy, but we found no evidence for a treatment-related difference (mean difference [chelation.placebo] during follow-up, 0.9 [95% confidence interval, .0.7 to 2.6; P=0.27]).There was no statistically significant evidence of a treatment-related difference in the Mental Health Inventory-5 during follow-up (mean difference, 1.0; 95% confidence interval, .0.1 to 2.0; P=0.08). None of the secondary QOL measures showed a consistent treatment-related difference. CONCLUSIONS: In stable, predominantly asymptomatic coronary disease patients with a history of myocardial infarction,EDTA chelation therapy did not have a detectable effect on QOL during 2 years of follow-up. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00044213.