RESUMO
PURPOSE: Major bleedings have been described with cefazolin. The objective was to determine the frequency of bleeding events in cefazolin-treated patients and to identify risk factors for these complications. METHODS: Monocenter prospective observational study of all consecutive cefazolin-treated patients. Patients benefited from a daily clinical assessment of bleedings and a twice-a-week blood sampling including hemostasis. Bleedings were classified according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis classification: major, clinically relevant non-major bleedings (CRNMB) and minor bleedings. RESULTS: From September 2019 to July 2020, 120 patients were included, with a mean age of 59.4 (± 20.7) years; 70% of them (84/120) were men. At least 1 CRNMB or major bleeding were observed in 10% of the patients (12/120). Compared to patients with no or minor bleeding, patients with CRNMB or major bleeding were, upon start of cefazolin, more frequently hospitalized in an intensive care unit (7/12, 58.3%, vs. 12/108, 11.1%, P < 0.001, respectively) and receiving vitamin K antagonists (4/12, 33.3%, vs. 8/108, 7.4%, P = 0.019, respectively). After multivariate analysis, patients receiving vitamin K antagonists the day prior bleeding and/or treated for endocarditis were factors associated with an increased risk of CRNMB or major bleeding (odd ratio 1.36, confidence interval 95%, 1.06-1.76, P = 0.020 and 1.30, 1.06-1.61, P = 0.015, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Bleeding events associated with cefazolin treatment are frequent. Close clinical monitoring should be performed for patients treated for endocarditis and/or receiving vitamin K antagonists. Hemostasis work-up could be restricted to these patients.
Assuntos
Cefazolina , Endocardite , Masculino , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Feminino , Cefazolina/efeitos adversos , Estudos Prospectivos , Hemorragia/induzido quimicamente , Hemorragia/epidemiologia , Hemorragia/tratamento farmacológico , Fatores de Risco , Vitamina K , Endocardite/tratamento farmacológicoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Few studies have analyzed the cost of treatment of chronic angina pectoris, especially in European countries. AIM: To determine, using a modeling approach, the cost of care in 2012 for 1year of treatment of patients with stable angina, according to four therapeutic options: optimal medical therapy (OMT); percutaneous coronary intervention with bare-metal stent (PCI-BMS); PCI with drug-eluting stent (PCI-DES); and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). METHODS: Six different clinical scenarios that could occur over 1year were defined: clinical success; recurrence of symptoms without hospitalization; myocardial infarction (MI); subsequent revascularization; death from non-cardiac cause; and cardiac death. The probability of a patient being in one of the six clinical scenarios, according to the therapeutic options used, was determined from a literature search. A direct medical cost for each of the therapeutic options was calculated from the perspective of French statutory health insurance. RESULTS: The annual costs per patient for each strategy, according to their efficacy results, were, in our models, 1567 with OMT, 5908 with PCI-BMS, 6623 with PCI-DES and 16,612 with CABG. These costs were significantly different (P<0.05). A part of these costs was related to management of complications (recurrence of symptoms, MI and death) during the year (between 3% and 38% depending on the therapeutic options studied); this part of the expenditure was lowest with the CABG therapeutic option. CONCLUSION: OMT appears to be the least costly option, and, if reasonable from a clinical point of view, might achieve appreciable savings in health expenditure.
Assuntos
Angina Estável/economia , Angina Estável/terapia , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/economia , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/uso terapêutico , Ponte de Artéria Coronária/economia , Doença da Artéria Coronariana/economia , Doença da Artéria Coronariana/terapia , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Gastos em Saúde , Modelos Econômicos , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea/economia , Idoso , Angina Estável/diagnóstico , Angina Estável/mortalidade , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/efeitos adversos , Causas de Morte , Doença Crônica , Ponte de Artéria Coronária/efeitos adversos , Ponte de Artéria Coronária/mortalidade , Doença da Artéria Coronariana/diagnóstico , Doença da Artéria Coronariana/mortalidade , Redução de Custos , Análise Custo-Benefício , Custos de Medicamentos , Stents Farmacológicos/economia , Feminino , França , Humanos , Masculino , Metais/economia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Programas Nacionais de Saúde/economia , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea/efeitos adversos , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea/instrumentação , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea/mortalidade , Desenho de Prótese , Recidiva , Stents/economia , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
The objective of this study is to develop a cost-effectiveness model comparing drug eluting stents (DES) vs bare metal stent (BMS) in patients suffering of stable coronary artery disease. Using a 2-years time horizon, two simulation models have been developed: BMS first line strategy and DES first line strategy. Direct medical costs were estimated considering ambulatory and hospital costs. The effectiveness endpoint was defined as treatment success, which is the absence of major adverse cardiac events. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out using 10000 Monte-Carlo simulations. DES appeared slightly more efficacious over 2 years (60% of success) when compared to BMS (58% of success). Total costs over 2 years were estimated at 9303 for the DES and at 8926 for bare metal stent. Hence, corresponding mean cost-effectiveness ratios showed slightly lower costs (P < 0.05) per success for the BMS strategy (15520 /success), as compared to the DES strategy (15588 /success). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is 18850 for one additional percent of success. The sequential strategy including BMS as the first option appears to be slightly less efficacious but more cost-effective compared to the strategy including DES as first option. Future modelling approaches should confirm these results as further comparative data in stable coronary artery disease and long-term evidence become available.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Numerous studies have assessed cost-effectiveness of different treatment modalities for stable angina. Direct comparisons, however, are uncommon. We therefore set out to compare the efficacy and mean cost per patient after 1 and 3 years of follow-up, of the following treatments as assessed in randomized controlled trials (RCT): medical therapy (MT), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without stent (PTCA), with bare-metal stent (BMS), with drug-eluting stent (DES), and elective coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). METHODS: RCT comparing at least two of the five treatments and reporting clinical and cost data were identified by a systematic search. Clinical end-points were mortality and myocardial infarction (MI). The costs described in the different trials were standardized and expressed in US $ 2008, based on purchasing power parity. A network meta-analysis was used to compare costs. RESULTS: Fifteen RCT were selected. Mortality and MI rates were similar in the five treatment groups both for 1-year and 3-year follow-up. Weighted cost per patient however differed markedly for the five treatment modalities, at both one year and three years (P<0.0001). MT was the least expensive treatment modality: US $3069 and 13 864 after one and three years of follow-up, while CABG was the most costly: US $27 003 and 28 670 after one and three years. PCI, whether with plain balloon, BMS or DES came in between, but was closer to the costs of CABG. CONCLUSIONS: Appreciable savings in health expenditures can be achieved by using MT in the management of patients with stable angina.