Domínios analisados na avaliação da resiliência em indivíduos com doenças cardiovasculares crônicas: revisão de escopo / Domains analyzed in the assessment of resilience in individuals with chronic cardiovascular diseases: a scoping review / Dominios analizados en la evaluación de la resiliencia en individuos con enfermedades cardiovasculares crónicas: revisión de escopo

OBJETIVO: Mapear as evidências científicas sobre os instrumentos utilizados na avaliação da resiliência em indivíduos adultos com doenças cardiovasculares crônicas e explorar seus domínios. MÉTODO: Revisão de escopo para responder à questão: Quais os instrumentos ou questionários utilizados para avaliação da resiliência em indivíduos adultos com doenças cardiovasculares crônicas? Foi realizada pesquisa nas bases de dados LILACS, Scopus, Web of Science, Pubmed, CINAHL e literatura cinzenta. Os estudos foram adicionados ao gerenciador Mendeley e a seleção realizada por dois revisores independentes (Kappa=0.86). RESULTADOS: Foram identificados 164 estudos e incluídos 14, sendo utilizados seis instrumentos para avaliação da resiliência. A avaliação da resiliência ocorreu em indivíduos com cardiopatia isquêmica, infarto do miocárdio, acidente vascular cerebral e insuficiência cardíaca. CONCLUSÃO: Os instrumentos não são adaptados para uso em indivíduos com doenças cardiovasculares crônicas. Faz-se necessária a formulação de instrumentos específicos que contemplem domínios individuais, mas que considerem o contexto social deste indivíduo.

OBJECTIVE: To map the scientific evidence on the instruments used to assess resilience in adult individuals with chronic cardiovascular disease, and explore their domains. METHOD: A scoping review to meet the question: What are the instruments or questionnaires used to assess resilience in adult individuals with chronic cardiovascular disease? The search was conducted in LILACS, Scopus, Web of Science, Pubmed, CINAHL databases and the grey literature. Studies were uploaded to Mendeley and the selection was performed by two independent reviewers (Kappa=0.86). RESULTS: A total of 164 studies were identified and 14 were included; six instruments were used to assess resilience. The resilience assessment occurred in individuals with ischemic heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure. CONCLUSION: The instruments were not adapted for use in individuals with chronic cardiovascular diseases. The development of specific instruments that include individual domains and consider the social context of these individuals is necessary.

OBJETIVO: Mapear la evidencia científica sobre los instrumentos utilizados para evaluar la resiliencia en adultos con enfermedades cardiovasculares crónicas y explorar sus dominios. MÉTODO: Revisión de escopo para responder a la pregunta: ¿Que instrumentos o cuestionarios se utilizan para evaluar la resiliencia en personas adultas con enfermedades cardiovasculares crónicas? Se realizó una búsqueda en las bases de datos LILACS, Scopus, Web of Science, Pubmed, CINAHL y literatura gris. Los estudios fueron agregados al medidor Mendeley y la selección fue realizada por dos revisores independientes (Kappa=0.86). RESULTADOS: Se identificaron 164 estudios y se incluyeron 14, utilizando seis instrumentos para evaluar la resiliencia. La evaluación de la resiliencia se llevó a cabo en personas con cardiopatía isquémica, infarto del miocardio, accidente vascular cerebral e insuficiencia cardíaca. CONCLUSIÓN: Los instrumentos no están adaptados para su uso en personas con enfermedades cardiovasculares crónicas. Es necesario formular instrumentos específicos que contemplen dominios individuales, pero que consideren el contexto social de este individuo.

Cost-effectiveness of Drug-Eluting Stents in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Brazil's Unified Public Health System (SUS). / Custo-efetividade do Stent Farmacológico na Intervenção Coronariana Percutânea no SUS.

Background The use of drug-eluting stents (DESs), compared with bare-metal stents (BMSs), in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has reduced the rate of restenosis, without an impact on mortality but with an increase in costs. Medical literature lacks randomized studies that economically compare these 2 stent types within the reality of the Brazilian Unified Public Health System (SUS). Objective To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between DES and BMS in SUS patients with single-vessel coronary artery disease. Methods Over a 3-year period, patients with symptomatic single-vessel coronary artery disease were randomized in a 1:2 ratio to receive a DES or BMS during PCI, with a 1-year clinical follow-up. The evaluation included in-stent restenosis (ISR), target lesion revascularization (TLR), major adverse events, and cost-effectiveness for each group. P-values <0.05 were considered significant. Results In the DES group, of 74 patients (96.1%) who completed the follow-up, 1 developed ISR (1.4%), 1 had TLR (1.4%), and 1 died (1.4%), with no cases of thrombosis. In the BMS group, of 141 patients (91.5%), ISR occurred in 14 (10.1%), TLR in 10 (7.3%), death in 3 (2.1%), and thrombosis in 1 (0.74%). In the economic analysis, the cost of the procedure was R$ 5,722.21 in the DES group and R$ 4,085.21 in the BMS group. The effectiveness by ISR and TLR was 8.7% for DES and 5.9% for BMS, with an ICER of R$ 18,816.09 and R$ 27,745.76, respectively. Conclusions In the SUS, DESs were cost-effective in accordance with the cost-effectiveness threshold recommended by the World Health Organization (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020; 115(1):80-89).

Custo-efetividade do Stent Farmacológico na Intervenção Coronariana Percutânea no SUS / Cost-effectiveness of Drug-Eluting Stents in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Brazils Unified Public Health System (SUS)

Resumo Fundamento O uso do stent farmacológico (SF) comparado ao stent não farmacológico (SNF) na intervenção coronariana percutânea (ICP) reduziu o percentual de reestenose, porém sem impacto na mortalidade, com aumento no custo. A literatura carece de estudos randomizados que comparem economicamente esses dois grupos de stents na realidade do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS). Objetivo Estimar a razão custo-efetividade incremental (RCEI) entre SF e SNF na coronariopatia uniarterial em pacientes do SUS Métodos Pacientes com coronariopatia uniarterial sintomática foram randomizados em 3 anos para uso de SF ou SNF durante a ICP, na proporção de 1:2, com seguimento clínico de 12 meses. Foram avaliados reestenose intrastent (RIS), revascularização da lesão-alvo (RLA), eventos adversos maiores e custo-efetividade (CE) de cada grupo. Os valores de p < 0,05 foram considerados significativos. Resultados No grupo SF, dos 74 pacientes (96,1%) que completaram o acompanhamento, ocorreu RIS em 1(1,4%), RLA em 1 (1,4%), óbito em 1 (1,4%), sem trombose. No grupo SNF, dos 141 pacientes (91,5%),ocorreu RIS em 14 (10,1%), RLA em 10 (7,3%), óbito em 3 (2,1%) e trombose em 1 (0,74%). Na análise econômica, o custo do procedimento foi de R$ 5.722,21 no grupo SF e de R$4.085,21 no grupo SNF. A diferença de efetividade a favor do grupo SF por RIS e RLA foi 8,7% e 5,9%, respectivamente, com RCEI de R$ 18.816,09 e R$ 27.745,76. Conclusões No SUS, o SF foi custo-efetivo, em concordância com o limiar de CE preconizado pela Organização Mundial da Saúde. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020; 115(1):80-89)

Abstract Background The use of drug-eluting stents (DESs), compared with bare-metal stents (BMSs), in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has reduced the rate of restenosis, without an impact on mortality but with an increase in costs. Medical literature lacks randomized studies that economically compare these 2 stent types within the reality of the Brazilian Unified Public Health System (SUS). Objective To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between DES and BMS in SUS patients with single-vessel coronary artery disease. Methods Over a 3-year period, patients with symptomatic single-vessel coronary artery disease were randomized in a 1:2 ratio to receive a DES or BMS during PCI, with a 1-year clinical follow-up. The evaluation included in-stent restenosis (ISR), target lesion revascularization (TLR), major adverse events, and cost-effectiveness for each group. P-values <0.05 were considered significant. Results In the DES group, of 74 patients (96.1%) who completed the follow-up, 1 developed ISR (1.4%), 1 had TLR (1.4%), and 1 died (1.4%), with no cases of thrombosis. In the BMS group, of 141 patients (91.5%), ISR occurred in 14 (10.1%), TLR in 10 (7.3%), death in 3 (2.1%), and thrombosis in 1 (0.74%). In the economic analysis, the cost of the procedure was R$ 5,722.21 in the DES group and R$ 4,085.21 in the BMS group. The effectiveness by ISR and TLR was 8.7% for DES and 5.9% for BMS, with an ICER of R$ 18,816.09 and R$ 27,745.76, respectively. Conclusions In the SUS, DESs were cost-effective in accordance with the cost-effectiveness threshold recommended by the World Health Organization (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020; 115(1):80-89)

Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of FFR Compared with Angiography in Multivessel Disease Patient / Impacto Clínico e Custo-Efetividade da FFR em Comparação à Angiografia em Pacientes com Doenças Multiarteriais Submetidos à ICP

Abstract Background: In multivessel disease patients with moderate stenosis, fractional flow reserve (FFR) allows the analysis of the lesions and guides treatment, and could contribute to the cost-effectiveness (CE) of non-pharmacological stents (NPS). Objectives: To evaluate CE and clinical impact of FFR-guided versus angiography-guided angioplasty (ANGIO) in multivessel patients using NPS. Methods: Multivessel disease patients were prospectively randomized to FFR or ANGIO groups during a 5 year-period and followed for < 12 months. Outcomes measures were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), restenosis and CE. Results: We studied 69 patients, 47 (68.1%) men, aged 62.0 ± 9.0 years, 34 (49.2%) in FFR group and 53 (50.7%) in ANGIO group, with stable angina or acute coronary syndrome. In FFR, there were 26 patients with biarterial disease (76.5%) and 8 (23.5%) with triarterial disease, and in ANGIO, 24 (68.6%) with biarterial and 11 (31.4%) with triarterial disease. Twelve MACEs were observed - 3 deaths: 2 (5.8%) in FFR and 1 (2.8%) in ANGIO, 9 (13.0%) angina: 4(11.7%) in FFR and 5(14.2%) in ANGIO, 6 restenosis: 2(5.8%) in FFR and 4 (11.4%) in ANGIO. Angiography detected 87(53.0%) lesions in FFR, 39(23.7%) with PCI and 48(29.3%) with medical treatment; and 77 (47.0%) lesions in ANGIO, all treated with angioplasty. Thirty-nine (33.3%) stents were registered in FFR (0.45 ± 0.50 stents/lesion) and 78 (1.05 ± 0.22 stents/lesion) in ANGIO (p = 0.0001), 51.4% greater in ANGIO than FFR. CE analysis revealed a cost of BRL 5,045.97 BRL 5,430.60 in ANGIO and FFR, respectively. The difference of effectiveness was of 1.82%. Conclusion: FFR reduced the number of lesions treated and stents, and the need for target-lesion revascularization, with a CE comparable with that of angiography.

Resumo Fundamentos: Em pacientes multiarteriais e lesões moderadas, a reserva de fluxo fracionada (FFR) avalia cada lesão e direciona o tratamento, podendo ser útil no custo-efetividade (CE) de implante de stents não farmacológicos (SNF). Objetivos: Avaliar CE e impacto clínico da angioplastia + FFR versus angioplastia + angiografia (ANGIO), em multiarteriais, utilizando SNF. Métodos: pacientes com doença multiarteriais foram randomizados prospectivamente durante ±5 anos para FFR ou ANGIO, e acompanhados por até 12 meses. Foram avaliados eventos cardíacos maiores (ECAM), reestenose e CE. Resultados: foram incluídos 69 pacientes, 47(68,1%) homens, 34(49,2%) no FFR e 35(50,7%) no ANGIO, idade 62,0 ± 9,0 anos, com angina estável e Síndrome Coronariana Aguda estabilizada. No FFR, havia 26 com doença (76,5%) biarterial e 8 (23,5%) triarterial, e no grupo ANGIO, 24(68,6%) biarteriais e 11(31,4%) triarteriais. Ocorreram 12(17,3%) ECAM - 3(4,3%) óbitos: 2(5,8%) no FFR e 1(2,8%) no ANGIO, 9(13,0%) anginas, 4(11,7%) no FFR e 5(14,2%) no ANGIO, 6 reestenoses: 2(5,8%) no FFR e 4 (11,4%) no ANGIO. Angiografia detectou 87(53,0%) lesões no FFR, 39(23,7%) com ICP e 48(29,3%) com tratamento clínico; e 77(47,0%) lesões no ANGIO, todas submetidas à angioplastia. Quanto aos stents, registrou-se 39(33,3%) (0,45 ± 0,50 stents/lesão) no FFR e 78(66,6%) (1,05 ± 0,22 stents/lesão) no ANGIO (p = 0,0001); ANGIO utilizou 51,4% a mais que o FFR. Análise de CE revelou um custo de R$5045,97 e R$5.430,60 nos grupos ANGIO e FFR, respectivamente. A diferença de efetividade foi 1,82%. Conclusões: FFR diminuiu o número de lesões tratadas e de stents e necessidade de revascularização do vaso-alvo, com CE comparável ao da angiografia.

Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of FFR Compared with Angiography in Multivessel Disease Patient.

BACKGROUND: In multivessel disease patients with moderate stenosis, fractional flow reserve (FFR) allows the analysis of the lesions and guides treatment, and could contribute to the cost-effectiveness (CE) of non-pharmacological stents (NPS). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate CE and clinical impact of FFR-guided versus angiography-guided angioplasty (ANGIO) in multivessel patients using NPS. METHODS: Multivessel disease patients were prospectively randomized to FFR or ANGIO groups during a 5 year-period and followed for < 12 months. Outcomes measures were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), restenosis and CE. RESULTS: We studied 69 patients, 47 (68.1%) men, aged 62.0 ± 9.0 years, 34 (49.2%) in FFR group and 53 (50.7%) in ANGIO group, with stable angina or acute coronary syndrome. In FFR, there were 26 patients with biarterial disease (76.5%) and 8 (23.5%) with triarterial disease, and in ANGIO, 24 (68.6%) with biarterial and 11 (31.4%) with triarterial disease. Twelve MACEs were observed - 3 deaths: 2 (5.8%) in FFR and 1 (2.8%) in ANGIO, 9 (13.0%) angina: 4(11.7%) in FFR and 5(14.2%) in ANGIO, 6 restenosis: 2(5.8%) in FFR and 4 (11.4%) in ANGIO. Angiography detected 87(53.0%) lesions in FFR, 39(23.7%) with PCI and 48(29.3%) with medical treatment; and 77 (47.0%) lesions in ANGIO, all treated with angioplasty. Thirty-nine (33.3%) stents were registered in FFR (0.45 ± 0.50 stents/lesion) and 78 (1.05 ± 0.22 stents/lesion) in ANGIO (p = 0.0001), 51.4% greater in ANGIO than FFR. CE analysis revealed a cost of BRL 5,045.97 BRL 5,430.60 in ANGIO and FFR, respectively. The difference of effectiveness was of 1.82%. CONCLUSION: FFR reduced the number of lesions treated and stents, and the need for target-lesion revascularization, with a CE comparable with that of angiography.

I Brazilian Registry of Heart Failure - Clinical Aspects, Care Quality and Hospitalization Outcomes / I Registro Brasileiro de Insuficiência Cardíaca – Aspectos Clínicos, Qualidade Assistencial e Desfechos Hospitalares

Background: Heart failure (HF) is one of the leading causes of hospitalization in adults in Brazil. However, most of the available data is limited to unicenter registries. The BREATHE registry is the first to include a large sample of hospitalized patients with decompensated HF from different regions in Brazil. Objective: Describe the clinical characteristics, treatment and prognosis of hospitalized patients admitted with acute HF. Methods: Observational registry study with longitudinal follow-up. The eligibility criteria included patients older than 18 years with a definitive diagnosis of HF, admitted to public or private hospitals. Assessed outcomes included the causes of decompensation, use of medications, care quality indicators, hemodynamic profile and intrahospital events. Results: A total of 1,263 patients (64±16 years, 60% women) were included from 51 centers from different regions in Brazil. The most common comorbidities were hypertension (70.8%), dyslipidemia (36.7%) and diabetes (34%). Around 40% of the patients had normal left ventricular systolic function and most were admitted with a wet-warm clinical-hemodynamic profile. Vasodilators and intravenous inotropes were used in less than 15% of the studied cohort. Care quality indicators based on hospital discharge recommendations were reached in less than 65% of the patients. Intrahospital mortality affected 12.6% of all patients included. Conclusion: The BREATHE study demonstrated the high intrahospital mortality of patients admitted with acute HF in Brazil, in addition to the low rate of prescription of drugs based on evidence. .

Fundamento: A insuficiência cardíaca (IC) é uma das principais causas de hospitalização em adultos no Brasil, no entanto a maioria dos dados disponíveis é limitada a registros unicêntricos. O registro BREATHE é o primeiro a incluir uma ampla amostra de pacientes hospitalizados com IC descompensada de diferentes regiões do Brasil. Objetivo: Descrever as características clínicas, tratamento e prognóstico intra-hospitalar de pacientes admitidos com IC aguda. Métodos: Estudo observacional tipo registro, com seguimento longitudinal. Os critérios de elegibilidade incluíram pacientes acima de 18 anos com diagnóstico definitivo de IC, admitidos em hospitais públicos ou privados. Os desfechos avaliados incluíram causas de descompensação, uso de medicações, indicadores de qualidade assistencial, perfil hemodinâmico e eventos intra-hospitalares. Resultados: O total de 1.263 pacientes (64 ± 16 anos, 60% mulheres) foi incluído a partir de 51 centros de diferentes regiões do Brasil. As comorbidades mais comuns foram hipertensão arterial (70,8%), dislipidemia (36,7%) e diabetes (34%). Em torno de 40% dos pacientes apresentavam função sistólica do ventrículo esquerdo normal e a maioria foi admitida com perfil clínico-hemodinâmico quente-úmido. Vasodilatadores e inotrópicos endovenosos foram administrados a menos de 15% da amostra estudada. Indicadores de qualidade assistencial baseados nas orientações de alta hospitalar foram atingidos em menos de 65% dos pacientes. A mortalidade intra-hospitalar afetou 12,6% do total dos pacientes incluídos. Conclusão: O estudo BREATHE demonstrou a alta mortalidade intra-hospitalar dos pacientes admitidos com IC aguda no Brasil, somada à baixa taxa de prescrição de medicamentos baseados em evidências. .

Bioimpedância transtorácica comparada à ressonância magnética na avaliação do débito cardíaco / Transthoracic impedance compared to magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of cardiac output

FUNDAMENTO: A ressonância magnética cardíaca é considerada o método padrão-ouro para o cálculo de volumes cardíacos. A bioimpedância transtorácica cardíaca avalia o débito cardíaco. Não há trabalhos que validem essa medida comparada à ressonância. OBJETIVO: Avaliar o desempenho da bioimpedância transtorácica cardíaca no cálculo do débito cardíaco, índice cardíaco e volume sistólico, utilizando a ressonância como padrão-ouro. MÉTODOS: Avaliados 31 pacientes, com média de idade de 56,7 ± 18 anos, sendo 18 (58%) do sexo masculino. Foram excluídos os pacientes cuja indicação para a ressonância magnética cardíaca incluía avaliação sob estresse farmacológico. A correlação entre os métodos foi avaliada pelo coeficiente de Pearson, e a dispersão das diferenças absolutas em relação à média foi demonstrada pelo método de Bland-Altman. A concordância entre os métodos foi realizada pelo coeficiente de correlação intraclasses. RESULTADOS: A média do débito cardíaco pela bioimpedância transtorácica cardíaca e pela ressonância foi, respectivamente, 5,16 ± 0,9 e 5,13 ± 0,9 L/min. Observou-se boa correlação entre os métodos para o débito cardíaco (r = 0,79; p = 0,0001), índice cardíaco (r = 0,74; p = 0,0001) e volume sistólico (r = 0,88; p = 0,0001). A avaliação pelo gráfico de Bland-Altman mostrou pequena dispersão das diferenças em relação à média, com baixa amplitude dos intervalos de concordância. Houve boa concordância entre os dois métodos quando avaliados pelo coeficiente de correlação intraclasses, com coeficientes para débito cardíaco, índice cardíaco e volume sistólico de 0,78, 0,73 e 0,88, respectivamente (p < 0,0001 para todas as comparações). CONCLUSÃO: A bioimpedância transtorácica cardíaca mostrou-se acurada no cálculo do débito cardíaco quando comparada à ressonância magnética cardíaca.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging is considered the gold-standard method for the calculation of cardiac volumes. Transthoracic impedance cardiography assesses the cardiac output. No studies validating this measurement, in comparison to that obtained by magnetic resonance imaging, are available. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of transthoracic impedance cardiography in the calculation of the cardiac output, cardiac index and stroke volume using magnetic resonance imaging as the gold-standard. METHODS: 31 patients with a mean age of 56.7 ± 18 years were assessed; of these, 18 (58%) were males. Patients whose indication for magnetic resonance imaging required pharmacologic stress test were excluded. Correlation between methods was assessed using the Pearson's coefficient, and dispersion of absolute differences in relation to the mean was demonstrated using the Bland-Altman's method. Agreement between methods was analyzed using the intraclass correlation coefficient. RESULTS: The mean cardiac output by transthoracic impedance cardiography and by magnetic resonance imaging was 5.16 ± 0.9 and 5.13 ± 0.9 L/min, respectively. Good agreement between methods was observed for cardiac output (r = 0.79; p = 0.0001), cardiac index (r = 0.74; p = 0.0001) and stroke volume (r = 0.88; p = 0.0001). The analysis by the Bland-Altman plot showed low dispersion of differences in relation to the mean, with a low amplitude of agreement intervals. Good agreement between the two methods was observed when analyzed by the intraclass correlation coefficient, with coefficients for cardiac output, cardiac index and stroke volume of 0.78, 0.73 and 0.88, respectively (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons). CONCLUSION: Transthoracic impedance cardiography proved accurate in the calculation of the cardiac output in comparison to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.

Transthoracic impedance compared to magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of cardiac output.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging is considered the gold-standard method for the calculation of cardiac volumes. Transthoracic impedance cardiography assesses the cardiac output. No studies validating this measurement, in comparison to that obtained by magnetic resonance imaging, are available. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of transthoracic impedance cardiography in the calculation of the cardiac output, cardiac index and stroke volume using magnetic resonance imaging as the gold-standard. METHODS: 31 patients with a mean age of 56.7 ± 18 years were assessed; of these, 18 (58%) were males. Patients whose indication for magnetic resonance imaging required pharmacologic stress test were excluded. Correlation between methods was assessed using the Pearson's coefficient, and dispersion of absolute differences in relation to the mean was demonstrated using the Bland-Altman's method. Agreement between methods was analyzed using the intraclass correlation coefficient. RESULTS: The mean cardiac output by transthoracic impedance cardiography and by magnetic resonance imaging was 5.16 ± 0.9 and 5.13 ± 0.9 L/min, respectively. Good agreement between methods was observed for cardiac output (r = 0.79; p = 0.0001), cardiac index (r = 0.74; p = 0.0001) and stroke volume (r = 0.88; p = 0.0001). The analysis by the Bland-Altman plot showed low dispersion of differences in relation to the mean, with a low amplitude of agreement intervals. Good agreement between the two methods was observed when analyzed by the intraclass correlation coefficient, with coefficients for cardiac output, cardiac index and stroke volume of 0.78, 0.73 and 0.88, respectively (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons). CONCLUSION: Transthoracic impedance cardiography proved accurate in the calculation of the cardiac output in comparison to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.

Uso de escore de propensão na análise de custo-efetividade com utilização seletiva de stents farmacológicos e não-farmacológicos / Use of propensity score in cost-effectiveness analysisng using drug-eluting and bare metal stents

Introdução: Os estudos sobre a razão de custo-efetividade dos stents farmacológicos (SFs) são escassos. Nosso objetivo foi avaliar os resultados e comparar os custos (razão custo--efetividade incremental – RCEI) por reestenose evitada entre SFs e stents não-farmacológicos (SNFs) utilizando o escore de propensão. Métodos: Incluímos na análise 220 pacientes tratados consecutivamente, dos quais 111 com SFs e 109 com SNFs. O escore de propensão foi usado para ajustar o efeito da intervenção por meio de pareamento, estratificação e ponderação. Resultados: Predominaram pacientes do sexo masculino (67,7% vs. 66,9%; P = 0,53), com média de idade de 65,9 anos. Pacientes tratados com SFs apresentaram maior frequência de diabetes (54% vs. 17,4%; P < 0,001) e doença triarterial (18,9% vs. 10,1%; P = 0,029) e pior função ventricular(54,1% vs. 22%; P < 0,0001). O diâmetro dos stents foi de 2,76 ± 0,35 mm vs. 2,91 ± 0,47 mm (P = 0,006) e a soma do comprimento dos stents foi de 37,6 ± 23 mmvs. 24,8 ± 15,8 mm (P < 0,0001). Reestenose ocorreu em 6,3% vs. 12,8% dos pacientes (P = 0,099) e em 4,1% vs.9,8% das lesões (P = 0,048). Houve incremento de custo de R$ 9.590,00 e a RCEI foi de R$ 147.538,00 por reestenose evitada (acima do limiar da Organização Mundial da Saúde). Entretanto, utilizando o escore de propensão, as variáveis que melhor classificaram os pacientes para SFs e apresentam RCEI máxima de R$ 4.776,96 foram idade > 72 anos, diabetes e lesões com diâmetro < 3,2 mm e comprimento > 18 mm.Conclusões: Apesar de os SFs não terem sido custo-efetivos na população em geral, o escore de propensão demonstrou que em idosos, diabéticos e pacientes com lesões longas ou vasos de fino calibre o uso de SFs foi custo-efetivo.

Analysis of the cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting and bare-metal stents in coronary disease.

BACKGROUND: There is a scarcity of cost-effectiveness analyses in the national literature comparing drug-eluting stents (DES) with bare-metal stents (BMS), at late follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) between DES and BMS in uniarterial coronariopathy. METHODS: 217 patients (130 DES and 87 BMS), with 48 months of follow-up (mean = 26 months) were assessed. PRIMARY OUTCOME: cost per prevented restenosis, with effectiveness being defined as the decrease in major events. The analytical model of decision was based on the study by Polanczyk et al. The direct costs were those used directly in the interventions. RESULTS: The sample was homogenous for age and sex. The DES was more used in diabetic patients: 59 (45.4%) vs 16 (18.4%)(p<0.0001) and with a history of coronary artery disease (CAD): 53 (40.7%) vs 13 (14.9%)(p<0.0001). The BMS was more used in simple lesions, but with worse ventricular function. The DES were implanted preferentially in proximal lesions: (p=0.0428) and the BMS in the mid-third (p=0.0001). Event-free survival: DES = 118 (90.8%) vs BMS=74 (85.0%) (p=0.19); Angina: DES=9 (6.9%) vs BMS=9 (10.3%) (NS): Clinical restenosis: DES=3 (2.3%) vs BMS=10 (10.3%) (p=0.0253). Cardiac deaths: 2 (1.5%) in DES and 3 (3.5%) in BMS (NS). COSTS: the tree of decision was modeled based on restenosis. The net benefit for the DES needed an increment of R$7,238.16. The ICER was R$131,647.84 per prevented restenosis (above the WHO threshold). CONCLUSIONS: The DES was used in more complex lesions. The clinical results were similar. The restenosis rate was higher in the BMS group. The DES was a non-cost-effective strategy.

Análise de custo-efetividade dos stents farmacológicos e não farmacológicos na doença coronariana / Analysis of the cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting and bare-metal stents in coronary disease

FUNDAMENTO: Na literatura nacional há escassez de análises de custo-efetividade, comparando stents farmacológicos (SF) versus não farmacológicos (SNF), no seguimento tardio. OBJETIVO: Estimar a Razão de Custo-Efetividade Incremental (RCEI) entre SF e SNF na coronariopatia uniarterial. MÉTODOS: 217 pacientes (130 SF e 87 SNF), com 48 meses de seguimento (média=26). Desfecho primário: custo por re-estenose evitada, sendo efetividade definida como redução de eventos maiores. O modelo analítico de decisão foi baseado no estudo de Polanczyk et al. Os custos diretos foram aqueles utilizados diretamente nas intervenções. RESULTADOS: A amostra foi homogênea para idade e sexo. O SF foi mais utilizado em diabéticos: 59 (45,4 por cento) vs 16 (18,4 por cento)(p<0,0001) e com história de DAC: 53 (40,7 por cento) vs 13 (14,9 por cento)(p<0,0001). O SNF foi utilizado em lesões mais simples, porém com pior função ventricular. Os SF foram implantados preferencialmente nas lesões proximais: (p=0,0428) e os SNF no 1/3 médio (p=0,0001). Sobrevida livre de eventos: SF=118 (90,8 por cento) vs SNF=74 (85,0 por cento) (p=0,19); Angina: SF=9 (6,9 por cento) vs SNF=9 (10,3 por cento) (NS): Reestenose clínica: SF=3 (2,3 por cento) vs SNF=10 (10,3 por cento) (p=0,0253). Óbitos cardíacos: 2 (1,5 por cento) no SF e 3 (3,5 por cento) no SNF (NS). Custos: a árvore de decisão foi modelada na reestenose. O benefício líquido para SF necessitou de incremento de R$7.238,16. A RCEI foi R$131.647,84 por reestenose evitada (acima do limiar da OMS). CONCLUSÕES: O SF abordou lesões mais complexas. Os resultados clínicos foram similares. A reestenose foi maior no SNF. O SF foi uma estratégia não custo-efetiva.

BACKGROUND: There is a scarcity of cost-effectiveness analyses in the national literature comparing drug-eluting stents (DES) with bare-metal stents (BMS), at late follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) between DES and BMS in uniarterial coronariopathy. METHODS: 217 patients (130 DES and 87 BMS), with 48 months of follow-up (mean = 26 months) were assessed. Primary outcome: cost per prevented restenosis, with effectiveness being defined as the decrease in major events. The analytical model of decision was based on the study by Polanczyk et al. The direct costs were those used directly in the interventions. RESULTS: The sample was homogenous for age and sex. The DES was more used in diabetic patients: 59 (45.4 percent) vs 16 (18.4 percent)(p<0.0001) and with a history of coronary artery disease (CAD): 53 (40.7 percent) vs 13 (14.9 percent)(p<0.0001). The BMS was more used in simple lesions, but with worse ventricular function. The DES were implanted preferentially in proximal lesions: (p=0.0428) and the BMS in the mid-third (p=0.0001). Event-free survival: DES = 118 (90.8 percent) vs BMS=74 (85.0 percent) (p=0.19); Angina: DES=9 (6.9 percent) vs BMS=9 (10.3 percent) (NS): Clinical restenosis: DES=3 (2.3 percent) vs BMS=10 (10.3 percent) (p=0.0253). Cardiac deaths: 2 (1.5 percent) in DES and 3 (3.5 percent) in BMS (NS). Costs: the tree of decision was modeled based on restenosis. The net benefit for the DES needed an increment of R$7,238.16. The ICER was R$131,647.84 per prevented restenosis (above the WHO threshold). CONCLUSIONS: The DES was used in more complex lesions. The clinical results were similar. The restenosis rate was higher in the BMS group. The DES was a non-cost-effective strategy.

Consulta de enfermagem: Pesquisar/Cuidar através da escuta sensível em uma clínica de insuficiência cardíaca / Consulta de enfermería: Investigar/Cuidar través de la escucha sensible en una clínica de insuficiencia cardiaca / Nursing assessment: Research/Care through the sensible listening in the heart failure clinic

Assuming that nursing assessment for heart failure clients help us to face the changes in your daily, we enquire what the contribution of sensible listening applied to nursing assessment. The purpose is to identify the needs of care creating a new way to care/research sensibly through nursing appointment. The methodology of quantitative character and exploratory applied in the form of evaluation was performed by 50 clients in an hospital in Rio de Janeiro. It was found that 100% of the people have lack of knowledge about HF, followed by diet and medicines. Analyzing social , there is a majority of 38% with no commitment to treatment, 36% with poor economic conditions and 32% related to bad nutrition. Nursing interventions were applied to solve problems identified beyond medicative therapy, allowing the client to have an exclusive treatment extended to its mental/intellectual and spiritual dimensions.

Pressupondo que a consulta de enfermagem aos clientes com insuficiência cardíaca (IC) os ajuda a enfrentar mudanças no seu cotidiano, indaga-se a contribuição da escuta sensível aplicada nessa consulta. Objetivo: identificar necessidades de cuidado dos clientes de uma modalidade de pesquisar/cuidar sensivelmente através da consulta de enfermagem. A metodologia de caráter quantitativa e exploratória aplicada na forma de avaliação foi realizada em 50 clientes , num ambulatório do Rio de Janeiro. Constatou-se que todos possuem déficit de conhecimento sobre a IC, seguindo-se dieta e medicamentos. Nos diagnósticos do domínio social predominam 38% de falta de adesão ao tratamento, 36% de condições econômicas precárias e 32% de má nutrição. Concluiu-se que a interação possibilitada pela escuta sensível favoreceu a expressão verbal das pessoas quanto ao seu sofrimento convivendo com IC, pela sua finitude, limitação de mobilidade, inclusive, social. Intervenções de enfermagem resolveram problemas identificados além da terapêutica medicamentosa, permitindo ao cliente um tratamento extensivo às suas dimensões mental/intelectual e espiritual.

Presuponiendo que la consulta de enfermería a lo enfermo con insuficiencia cardiaca (IC) contribuye para su enfrentamiento de los cambios de su cotidiano, se cuestiona la contribución de la aplicación de la escucha sensible en esa consulta. Objetivo: identificar las necesidades de cuidado de los clientes través una modalidad de investigar /cuidar sensiblemente en la consulta de enfermería. La metodología quantitativa e exploratoría aplicada en forma de evaluación fue aplicado en 50 clientes , en una clínica de Rio de Janeiro- Brasil. Se verificó que todos poseen déficit de conocimiento sobre la IC, dieta y medicamentos. En los diagnósticos del dominio social ha predominado 38% de no conformidad al tratamiento, 36% de condiciones económicas desfavorables y 32% de mala nutrición. Se concluyó que la interacción posibilitada por la escucha sensible favoreció la expresión verbal de las personas cuanto al su sufrir conviviendo con la IC. Eso debido la finitud, limitación de la movilidad, incluso, social en esa enfermedad. Las intervenciones de enfermería han resuelto los problemas identificados además de la terapéutica medicamentosa, permitiendo al enfermo un tratamiento extensivo à sus dimensiones mental /intelectual y espiritual.