Quality of life after late invasive therapy for occluded arteries.

BACKGROUND: The open-artery hypothesis postulates that late opening of an infarct-related artery after myocardial infarction will improve clinical outcomes. We evaluated the quality-of-life and economic outcomes associated with the use of this strategy. METHODS: We compared percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) plus stenting with medical therapy alone in high-risk patients in stable condition who had a totally occluded infarct-related artery 3 to 28 days after myocardial infarction. In 951 patients (44% of those eligible), we assessed quality of life by means of a battery of tests that included two principal outcome measures, the Duke Activity Status Index (DASI) (which measures cardiac physical function on a scale from 0 to 58, with higher scores indicating better function) and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Mental Health Inventory 5 (which measures psychological well-being). Structured quality-of-life interviews were performed at baseline and at 4, 12, and 24 months. Costs of treatment were assessed for 458 of 469 patients in the United States (98%), and 2-year cost-effectiveness was estimated. RESULTS: At 4 months, the medical-therapy group, as compared with the PCI group, had a clinically marginal decrease of 3.4 points in the DASI score (P=0.007). At 1 and 2 years, the differences were smaller. No significant differences in psychological well-being were observed. For the 469 patients in the United States, cumulative 2-year costs were approximately $7,000 higher in the PCI group (P<0.001), and the quality-adjusted survival was marginally longer in the medical-therapy group. CONCLUSIONS: PCI was associated with a marginal advantage in cardiac physical function at 4 months but not thereafter. At 2 years, medical therapy remained significantly less expensive than routine PCI and was associated with marginally longer quality-adjusted survival. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00004562.)

Rationale and design of the Home Automatic External Defibrillator Trial (HAT).

Most cardiac arrests occur in the home, where emergency medical services (EMS) systems are challenged to provide timely care. Because a large proportion of sudden cardiac arrests (SCAs) are due to ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation, home use of an automated external defibrillator (AED) might offer an opportunity to decrease mortality in those at risk. Predicting who will have a cardiac arrest in the general population is difficult. Individuals at high risk are usually easily identified and may become candidates for implantable cardioverter defibrillators. It is within the population at lower risk where home AEDs may be most useful. The purpose of the Home Automatic External Defibrillator Trial (HAT) is to test whether providing home access to an AED can improve survival in patients at modest risk of SCA, such as those surviving an anterior myocardial infarction but in whom implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy is not deemed necessary. Between January 23, 2003, and October 20, 2005, 7001 patients were enrolled, with completion of follow-up scheduled for September 30, 2007. Randomization was conducted in a 1:1 fashion between control therapy, comprising the standard lay response to SCA (calling the EMS and performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation), and the use of an AED first, followed by calling the EMS and performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The primary end point is all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes include survival from SCA (witnessed and unwitnessed, in home and out of home), incremental cost-effectiveness, and quality of life measures for both the patient and the spouse/companion. The results of the trial should be available in mid 2008.

Cost-effectiveness of defibrillator therapy or amiodarone in chronic stable heart failure: results from the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT).

BACKGROUND: In the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT), implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy significantly reduced all-cause mortality rates compared with medical therapy alone in patients with stable, moderately symptomatic heart failure, whereas amiodarone had no benefit on mortality rates. We examined long-term economic implications of these results. METHODS AND RESULTS: Medical costs were estimated by using hospital billing data and the Medicare Fee Schedule. Our base case cost-effectiveness analysis used empirical clinical and cost data to estimate the lifetime incremental cost of saving an extra life-year with ICD therapy relative to medical therapy alone. At 5 years, the amiodarone arm had a survival rate equivalent to that of the placebo arm and higher costs than the placebo arm. For ICD relative to medical therapy alone, the base case lifetime cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios (discounted at 3%) were dollar 38,389 per life-year saved (LYS) and dollar 41,530 per quality-adjusted LYS, respectively. A cost-effectiveness ratio < dollar 100,000 was obtained in 99% of 1000 bootstrap repetitions. The cost-effectiveness ratio was sensitive to the amount of extrapolation beyond the empirical 5-year trial data: dollar 127,503 per LYS at 5 years, dollar 88,657 per LYS at 8 years, and dollar 58,510 per LYS at 12 years. Because of a significant interaction between ICD treatment and New York Heart Association class, the cost-effectiveness ratio was dollar 29,872 per LYS for class II, whereas there was incremental cost but no incremental benefit in class III. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic use of single-lead, shock-only ICD therapy is economically attractive in patients with stable, moderately symptomatic heart failure with an ejection fraction < or = 35%, particularly those in NYHA class II, as long as the benefits of ICD therapy observed in the SCD-HeFT persist for at least 8 years.