Cost of care and social consequences of very low birth weight infants without premature- related morbidities in Italy.

Aim of this study was to estimate the cost that is borne by the Italian National Health Service, families, and social security due to very low birth weight infants (VLBWIs) without prematurity-related morbidities up to the age of 18 months. We followed up on 150 VLBWIs and 145 comparable full-term infants (FTIs) who were born in one of 25 different neonatal intensive care units upon discharge from the hospital and at six and 18 months of age. The average length of the primary hospitalisation of the VLBWIs was 59.7 days (SD 21.6 days), with a total cost of €20,502 (SD €8409), compared with three days (SD 0.4 days) with a total cost of €907 (SD €304) for the FTIs. The total societal cost of the VLBWIs for the first 18 months of life was €58,098 (SD €21,625), while the corresponding figure for FTIs was €24,209 (SD €15,557). Among VLBWIs, both low birth weight and gestational age were correlated with the length of hospitalisation after birth (r(2) = 0.61 and r(2) = 0.57, respectively; p values < 0.0005). Our findings highlight that the existing DRGs and tariffs inadequately reflect the actual costs for Italian National Health Service.

Two-year clinical follow-up after sirolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stent implantation assisted by systematic glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitor Infusion in patients with myocardial infarction: results from the STRATEGY study.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to investigate whether the previously reported midterm clinical benefit of planned sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) was maintained over a 24-month time period. Moreover, the distribution of clinical events in relation to thienopyridine discontinuation was thoroughly investigated. BACKGROUND: No randomized data are currently available on the safety/benefit profile of SES in this subset of patients beyond 12 months. METHODS: Between March 2003 and April 2004, 175 patients with STEMI were randomly allocated to tirofiban infusion followed by SES or abciximab plus bare-metal stent (BMS). Complete follow-up information up to 720 days was available for all patients. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR) remained lower in the tirofiban-SES compared with the abciximab-BMS group at 2 years (24.2% vs. 38.6%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] 0.56 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.98]; p = 0.038). The composite of death/MI was similar in the tirofiban-SES (16.1%) and the abciximab-BMS groups (20.5%, HR 0.77 [95% CI 0.38 to 1.55]; p = 0.43) while the need for TVR was markedly reduced (9.8% vs. 25.5%, respectively; HR 0.34 [95% CI 0.16 to 0.77]; p = 0.01) in the tirofiban-SES arm. The rate of confirmed, probable, or possible stent thrombosis did not differ in the 2 groups, nor the incidence of death/MI after thienopyridine discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: The midterm clinical benefit of planned SES implantation assisted by tirofiban infusion in STEMI patients was mainly carried over after 2 years with no overall excess of late adverse events after thienopyridine discontinuation.

Tirofiban and sirolimus-eluting stent vs abciximab and bare-metal stent for acute myocardial infarction: a randomized trial.

CONTEXT: Bare-metal stenting with abciximab pretreatment is currently considered a reasonable reperfusion strategy for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Sirolimus-eluting stents significantly reduce the need for target-vessel revascularization (TVR) vs bare-metal stents but substantially increase procedural costs. At current European list prices, the use of tirofiban instead of abciximab would absorb the difference in cost between stenting with sirolimus-eluting vs bare-metal stents. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and angiographic impact of single high-dose bolus tirofiban plus sirolimus-eluting stenting vs abciximab plus bare-metal stenting in patients with STEMI. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled study (Single High Dose Bolus Tirofiban and Sirolimus Eluting Stent vs Abciximab and Bare Metal Stent in Myocardial Infarction [STRATEGY]) of 175 patients (median age, 63 [interquartile range, 55-72] years) presenting to a single referral center in Italy with STEMI or presumed new left bundle-branch block and randomized between March 6, 2003, and April 23, 2004. INTERVENTION: Single high-dose bolus tirofiban regimen plus sirolimus-eluting stenting (n = 87) vs standard-dose abciximab plus bare-metal stenting (n = 88). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or binary restenosis at 8 months. Secondary outcomes included freedom, at day 30 and month 8, from major cardiac or cerebrovascular adverse events (composite of death, reinfarction, stroke, and repeat TVR). RESULTS: Cumulatively, 14 of 74 patients (19%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10%-28%) in the tirofiban plus sirolimus-eluting stent group and 37 of 74 patients (50%; 95% CI, 44%-56%) in the abciximab plus bare-metal stent group reached the primary end point (hazard ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.18-0.60; P<.001 [P<.001 by Fischer exact test]). The cumulative incidence of death, reinfarction, stroke, or TVR was significantly lower in the tirofiban plus sirolimus-eluting stent group (18%) vs the abciximab plus bare-metal stent group (32%) (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.28-0.92; P = .04), predominantly reflecting a reduction in the need for TVR. Binary restenosis was present in 6 of 67 (9%; 95% CI, 2%-16%) and 24 of 66 (36%; 95% CI, 26%-46%) patients in the tirofiban plus sirolimus-eluting stent and abciximab plus bare-metal stent groups, respectively (P = .002). CONCLUSION: Tirofiban-supported sirolimus-eluting stenting of infarcted arteries holds promise for improving outcomes while limiting health care expenditure in patients with myocardial infarction undergoing primary intervention.

High-dose bolus tirofiban and sirolimus eluting stent versus abiciximab and bare metal stent in acute myocardial infarction (STRATEGY) study--protocol design and demography of the first 100 patients.

BACKGROUND: Primary bare metal stenting and abciximab infusion are currently considered the best available reperfusion strategy for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Sirolimus eluting stents (SES), compared to bare metal stent (BMS), greatly reduce the incidence of binary restenosis and target vessel revascularisation (TVR), but their use on a routine basis results in a significant increase in medical costs. With current European list prices, the use of tirofiban instead of abciximab would save enough money to absorb the difference between SES and BMS. AIM: To assess whether in patients with STEMI the combination of SES with high dose bolus (HDB) tirofiban results in a similar incidence of major cardiovascular events (MACE) but in a lower binary restenosis rate after six months compared to BMS and abciximab. METHODS AND RESULTS: 160 patients are required to satisfy the primary composite end-point, including MACE and binary restenosis. The study is ongoing: the current paper focuses on the methodology and demography of the first 100 patients so far enrolled. Patients randomised to HDB tirofiban (n = 50, mean age: 62 +/- 12, 40 males) and abciximab (n = 50, mean age: 63 +/- 12, 38 males) do not differ for medical history, presentation profile, medications at discharge, angiographic profile and creatine-kinase MB-fraction at peak. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the trial will be available by the end of 2004: they will be crucial for the cardiologists to know whether the gold standard for AMI treatment should be reconsidered after the introduction of SES into the clinical practice.

The additive value of tirofiban administered with the high-dose bolus in the prevention of ischemic complications during high-risk coronary angioplasty: the ADVANCE Trial.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the safety and efficacy of high-dose bolus (HDB) tirofiban in high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND: The use of HDB tirofiban in the catheterization laboratory is controversial. In particular, in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing PCI, there is no evidence that tirofiban administered in the catheterization laboratory is superior to heparin alone. This finding probably reflects the suboptimal platelet inhibition when tirofiban is employed at RESTORE (Randomized Efficacy Study of Tirofiban for Outcomes and Restenosis) regimen. METHODS: A total of 202 patients (mean age 69 +/- 8 years; 137 males [68%]) undergoing high-risk PCI, pretreated with thienopyridines, were consecutively randomized to HDB tirofiban (25 microg/kg/3 min, and infusion of 0.15 microg/kg/min for 24 to 48 h) or placebo immediately before the procedure and then followed for a median time of 185 days (range 45 to 324 days) for the occurrence of the primary composite end point of death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization (TVR), and bailout use of glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitors. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of the primary end point was 35% and 20% in placebo and HDB tirofiban groups, respectively (hazard ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.88; p = 0.01). This difference was mainly due to the reduction of myocardial infarction and bailout use of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors, with no significant effect on TVR or death. The safety profile did not differ between tirofiban and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: The use of tirofiban, when administered at HDB, is safe and significantly reduces the incidence of ischemic/thrombotic complications during high-risk PCI.