Cost Analysis From a Randomized Comparison of Immediate Versus Delayed Angiography After Cardiac Arrest.

Background In patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without ST-segment elevation, immediate coronary angiography did not improve clinical outcomes when compared with delayed angiography in the COACT (Coronary Angiography After Cardiac Arrest) trial. Whether 1 of the 2 strategies has benefits in terms of health care resource use and costs is currently unknown. We assess the health care resource use and costs in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Methods and Results A total of 538 patients were randomly assigned to a strategy of either immediate or delayed coronary angiography. Detailed health care resource use and cost-prices were collected from the initial hospital episode. A generalized linear model and a gamma distribution were performed. Generic quality of life was measured with the RAND-36 and collected at 12-month follow-up. Overall total mean costs were similar between both groups (EUR 33 575±19 612 versus EUR 33 880±21 044; P=0.86). Generalized linear model: (ß, 0.991; 95% CI, 0.894-1.099; P=0.86). Mean procedural costs (coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass graft) were higher in the immediate angiography group (EUR 4384±3447 versus EUR 3028±4220; P<0.001). Costs concerning intensive care unit and ward stay did not show any significant difference. The RAND-36 questionnaire did not differ between both groups. Conclusions The mean total costs between patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest randomly assigned to an immediate angiography or a delayed invasive strategy were similar during the initial hospital stay. With respect to the higher invasive procedure costs in the immediate group, a strategy awaiting neurological recovery followed by coronary angiography and planned revascularization may be considered. Registration URL: https://trialregister.nl; Unique identifier: NL4857.

A simple risk chart for initial risk assessment of 30-day mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock from ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

AIMS: Early risk stratification is important in patients with cardiogenic shock from ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We aimed to develop a simple risk chart that includes clinical parameters that are readily available at time of hospital admission to assess risk of 30-day mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: A series of 544 STEMI patients admitted to undergo primary percutaneous coronary intervention and presenting with cardiogenic shock were included between 2000 and 2012. Overall 30-day mortality was 38.4% and did not change over the years (p-trend=0.64). Baseline variables that were available at time of hospital admission were entered into a logistic regression model in a forward stepwise manner. Only age (odds ratio (OR) per year 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-1.07, p<0.001), initial serum lactate level (OR per mmol/l 1.17, 95% CI 1.11-1.24, p<0.001) and initial creatinine level above the upper limit of normal (OR 2.89, 95% CI 1.90-4.37, p<0.001) remained independent predictors, and were subsequently used to develop a risk chart that stratifies risk of 30-day mortality into categories ranging from 0-20% to 80-100%. The calibration plot showed a close relationship between expected and observed mortality. The risk chart had a higher discriminative accuracy than the GRACE score (c-index 0.75 vs. 0.66, p=0.009). Adding variables that were obtained from coronary angiography and during clinical course did not significantly improve discriminative accuracy of risk chart (c-index 0.77, p=0.48). CONCLUSION: Mortality of patients with cardiogenic shock from STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention can be well predicted already at time of hospital admission by a risk chart that uses only three variables, namely, age, initial serum lactate and creatinine level.