Costs and effects of long-term oral anticoagulant treatment after myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the costs and effects of long-term oral anticoagulant treatment after myocardial infarction. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis, based on a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Sixty Dutch hospitals. PATIENTS: A total of 3404 hospital survivors of acute myocardial infarction randomized within a median period of 4 days after discharge to either oral anticoagulant treatment or placebo. The mean follow-up was 37 months. INTERVENTION: Oral anticoagulant treatment aimed at a target international normalized ratio of 2.8 to 4.8. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Costs of hospital stay during readmissions, costs related to major cardiologic interventions, and costs of oral anticoagulant treatment. RESULTS: The costs of oral anticoagulant treatment were estimated at 394 Dutch guilders (Dfl) per patient-year (Dfl 1 = US $0.58). Placebo patients stayed 18,830 days in the hospital compared with 15,083 days for anticoagulation patients. Average costs per patient of medical care during follow-up were estimated at Dfl 10,784 for placebo patients and Dfl 9878 for anticoagulation patients. CONCLUSIONS: Costs of long-term anticoagulant treatment are outweighed by the costs of prevented clinical events.

Assessment of therapeutic quality control in a long-term anticoagulant trial in post-myocardial infarction patients.

Various methods have been described to evaluate efficacy of anticoagulant therapy using the international normalized ratio (INR). We compared the following approaches: (1) total INR's or the most recent measurement; (2) percent time within therapeutic range, with INR changing directly or halfway between visits; and (3) total observation time assuming INR changing linearly. The study population comprised 1700 post myocardial infarction patients. Treatment comprised 3725 patient-years. There were 61,471 INR assessments with target therapeutic level of 2.8-4.8. Acenocoumarol as well as phenprocoumon were employed. Therapeutic achievement in the first months of treatment was low: less than 60% of INR's were in range. Treatment stabilized after 6 months. Patients on acenocoumarol were within range 70% of the time compared to 80% for phenprocoumon. Method 3 is preferred because it incorporates time and is capable of calculating incidence rates at different INR levels. Our findings call for an urgent improvement of standard of anticoagulant control in the first months following commencement of treatment.

Cost benefit analysis of early thrombolytic treatment with intracoronary streptokinase. Twelve month follow up report of the randomised multicentre trial conducted by the Interuniversity Cardiology Institute of The Netherlands.

The costs and benefits of early thrombolytic treatment with intracoronary streptokinase in acute myocardial infarction were compared in a randomised trial. All hospital admissions were recorded and the functional class was assessed at visits to the outpatient clinic during a 12 month follow up of 269 patients allocated to thrombolytic treatment and of 264 allocated to conventional treatment. Mean survival during the first year was calculated for patients with inferior and with anterior infarction and adjusted for impaired quality of life in cases where there were symptoms or hospital admission. In patients with inferior infarction mean survival was 337 days (out of a total follow up of 365 days) for patients allocated to thrombolytic treatment and 327 days for controls. Quality adjusted survival was seven days longer in the thrombolysis group (307 vs 300 days in controls). In patients with anterior infarction mean survival was significantly longer (35 days) in the thrombolysis group than in the control group as was quality adjusted survival (38 days) (304 vs 266 days in controls). The gain in life expectancy with thrombolytic treatment was 0.7 years for patients with inferior infarction, 2.4 years for patients with anterior infarction, and 3.6 years for the subset of patients with large anterior infarction who were admitted within two hours of the onset of symptoms. The costs of medical treatment, including medication, hospital stay, cardiac catheterisation, coronary angioplasty, and bypass surgery, in the first year follow up were higher inpatients allocated to thrombolytic treatment (an additional cost ofDfl 7000 in inferior and Dfl 9000in anterior infarction (1 pounds sterling approximately Dfl 3.3.)) than in conventionally treated patients. The additional costs per year of life gained were Dfl 10 000 in inferior infarction, Dfl 3 800 in anterior infarction, and only Dfl 1 900 in patients with large anterior infarction admitted within two hours of onset of symptoms. Intracoronary thrombolysis can be recommended as a cost effective treatment in patients with extensive anteroseptal infarction.