The Cost-Effectiveness of Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin Compared with Aspirin Alone in the COMPASS Trial: A US Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily with aspirin 100 mg daily was shown to be better than aspirin 100 mg daily for preventing cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke or myocardial infarction in patients with either stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). The cost-effectiveness of this regimen in this population is essential for decision-makers to know. METHODS: US direct healthcare system costs (in USD) were applied to hospitalized events, procedures and study drugs utilized by all patients. We determined the mean cost per participant for the full duration of the trial (mean follow-up of 23 months) plus quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over a lifetime using a two-state Markov model with 1-year cycle length. Sensitivity analyses were performed on the price of rivaroxaban and the annual discontinuation rate. RESULTS: The costs of events and procedures were reduced for Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) patients who received rivaroxaban 2.5 mg orally (BID) plus acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) compared with ASA alone. Total costs were higher for the combination group ($7426 versus $4173) after considering acquisition costs of the study drug. Over a lifetime, patients receiving rivaroxaban plus ASA incurred $27,255 more and gained 1.17 QALYs compared with those receiving ASA alone resulting in an ICER of $23,295/QALY. ICERs for PAD only and polyvascular disease subgroups were lower. CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID plus ASA compared with ASA alone was cost-effective (high value) in the USA. COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01776424.

Cost Implications of Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion During Cardiac Surgery: A Cost Analysis of the LAAOS III Trial.

Background The LAAOS III (Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Study) clinical trial demonstrated that concomitant left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion leads to a lower risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism compared with no occlusion in participants with atrial fibrillation and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of ≥2 undergoing cardiac surgery for another indication. We report the cost implications of concomitant LAA occlusion during cardiac surgery. Methods and Results Using LAAOS III data, we compared the costs (in US dollars) associated with LAA occlusion to no occlusion from the perspective of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. We calculated the average cost per participant during the trial by applying Medicare reimbursement costs to cardiovascular events for all trial participants. We conducted sensitivity analyses, varying the cost of stroke ±25% and occlusion technique use. Cost neutrality was defined as a mean cost difference within ±5% of the cost per participant in the no-occlusion group. Total study cost per participant was $3878 in the LAA occlusion group and $4490 in the no-occlusion group, a mean difference of -$612 (95% CI, -$1276 to $45). The main drivers of cost savings were fewer stroke events during the trial (mean difference of -$1021). In sensitivity analyses, LAA occlusion was cost saving for suture and stapler techniques but more expensive with closure device. Conclusions Concomitant LAA occlusion was cost saving for participants in LAAOS III. Our findings support concomitant LAA occlusion as an economically dominant strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of ≥2 undergoing cardiac surgery.

The impact of statistical properties of incremental monetary net benefit and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio on health economic modeling choices.

INTRODUCTION: There is controversy on whether to use incremental monetary net benefit (INMB) or incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in health economic evaluations alongside randomized controlled trials. We studied the impact of restricted mean survival time (RMST) on the long-term projection of INMB and ICER. METHODS: We analyzed the unbiasedness and efficiency of ICER and INMB by (1) deriving the metrics' expected values and variances based on theoretical probability distributions, (2) simulating their 15-year post-trial projections based on between-arm-RMST-gained through a 2 × 4 × 2 factorial experiment of Markov 2-state microsimulations. Simulations and comparison were run on the data from the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies Study (COMPASS). RESULTS: Our simulation findings using RMST showed that ICER was more efficient than INMB, regardless of disease populations, time horizon, modeling choices, and underlying probability distributions of incremental mean cost and effect. ICER had a small variance and thus showed its robustness to the choices of models. CONCLUSION: INMB's variance varies with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold quadratically while ICER's variance with a WTP threshold value quadratically while ICER's variance with incremental-mean-cost quadratically. A simple and naïve model can sufficiently estimate ICER. Future metrics are expected to be health-economic-meaningful, unambiguous, unbiased, efficient, and statistical-inference-friendly.

The cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in the COMPASS trial.

AIMS: The Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial demonstrated that rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID with aspirin 100 mg was more effective than aspirin 100 mg daily alone for the prevention of cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke, or myocardial infarction in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). We aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban using patient-level data from the COMPASS trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed an in-trial analysis and extrapolated our results for 33 years using a two-state Markov model with a 1-year cycle length. Hospitalization events, procedures, and study drugs were documented for patients. We applied country-specific (Canada, France, and Germany) direct healthcare system costs (in USD) to healthcare resources consumed by patients. Average cost per patient during the trial (mean follow-up of 23 months), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and lifetime cost-effectiveness were calculated. Costs of events and procedures were reduced with rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID with aspirin. The addition of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID increased total costs for the combination group. Over a lifetime horizon (in trial +33 years), rivaroxaban plus aspirin was associated with 1.17 QALYs gained, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $3946/QALY, $9962/QALY, and $10 264/QALY in Canada, France, and Germany, respectively. PAD and polyvascular disease subgroups had lower ICERs. CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone reduces direct healthcare costs. After acquisition costs of rivaroxaban, the lifetime cost-effectiveness of 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin is highly cost-effective in Canada, France, and Germany.(COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01776424).

The Cost Implications of Dabigatran in Patients with Myocardial Injury After Non-Cardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The Management of Myocardial Injury after Non-Cardiac Surgery (MANAGE) trial demonstrated that dabigatran 110 mg twice daily was more effective than placebo in preventing the primary composite outcome of vascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-hemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, amputation and symptomatic venous thromboembolism in patients with myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery (MINS). The cost implications of dabigatran for this population are unknown but are important given the significant clinical implications. METHODS: Hospitalized events, procedures, and study and non-study medications were documented. We applied Canadian unit costs to healthcare resources consumed for all patients in the trial, and calculated the average cost per patient in Canadian dollars for the duration of the study (median follow-up of 16 months). A sensitivity analysis was performed using only Canadian patients, and subgroup analyses were also conducted. RESULTS: The total study cost for the dabigatran group was $9985 per patient, compared with $10,082 for placebo, a difference of - $97 (95% confidence interval [CI] - $2128 to $3672). Savings arising from fewer clinical events and procedures in the dabigatran 110 mg twice-daily group were enough to offset the cost of the study drug. In Canadian patients, the difference was $250 (95% CI -$2848 to $4840). Both differences were considered cost neutral. Dabigatran 110 mg twice daily was cost saving or cost neutral in many subgroups that were considered. CONCLUSION: Dabigatran 110 mg twice daily was cost neutral for patients in the MANAGE trial. Our cost findings support the use of dabigatran 110 mg twice daily in patients with MINS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier number NCT01661101.

The cost implications of a polypill for primary prevention in the TIPS-3 trial.

AIMS: The International Polycap Study 3 (TIPS-3) trial demonstrated that a polypill containing cholesterol- and multiple blood-pressure-lowering drugs reduces cardiovascular events by 20% compared with placebo in people without cardiovascular disease. The polypill plus aspirin led to a 31% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular disease events compared with double placebo. We report regional variations in costs and affordability of a polypill based on the TIPS-3 trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Countries were categorized using World Bank economic groups: lower-middle-income, upper-middle-income, and high-income countries. Country-specific costs were obtained for hospitalization events, procedures, and non-study medications (2019 US dollars). Polypill price was based on the cheapest equivalent substitute (CES) for each component. For the polypill vs. placebo, the difference in cost over the 4.6 years of the trial was $291 [95% confidence interval (CI): $243-339] per participant in lower-middle-income countries, $1068 (95% CI: $992-1144) in upper-middle-income countries, and $48 (95% CI: -$271 to $367) in high-income countries. Results were similar for the polypill plus aspirin vs. a double placebo. In both cases, the polypill was affordable in all groups using monthly household capacity to pay or a threshold of 4% of the gross national income per capita. CONCLUSION: The use of a polypill (CES) in TIPS-3 increases costs in lower-middle-income countries and upper-middle-income countries but is affordable in countries at various economic levels and is cost neutral (dominant) in high-income countries.

Standardized Assessment of Global activities in the Elderly scale in adult cardiac surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: Different instruments have been used to assess ability to perform everyday functional activities, such as activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL). No measures of functional activity have been validated in cardiac surgery. We assessed the reliability and validity of the Standardized Assessment of Global activities in the Elderly (SAGE) scale. METHODS: We undertook an observational sub-study of VISION Cardiac Surgery. Patients were assessed post-discharge after cardiac surgery using SAGE and comparator measures to determine convergent validity. A blinded independent assessor administered SAGE by phone within 7 days to determine test-retest reliability. We sought to demonstrate a correlation of ≥0.5 between SAGE and each corresponding measure. We also sought to define the SAGE score corresponding to severe functional disability, defined using the World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS). RESULTS: There were 152 patients included. Inter-rater reliability was excellent (intra-class correlation coefficient=0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98-0.99). Convergent validity was evident, ranging from adequate for the overall SAGE score (0.54; 95% CI, 0.42-0.65) to very good for the SAGE mobility sub-score (0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.85). SAGE was initially poorly correlated with the IADL index (-0.24) but increased to -0.60 after post-hoc adjustment of SAGE scoring. A SAGE score ≥7 was associated with severe functional disability and occurred in 42/152 (27.6%) of patients. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate the reliability and validity of the SAGE scale as a measure of global function in patients discharged home after cardiac surgery. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01842568.

Projecting effectiveness after ending a randomized controlled trial: a two-state Markov microsimulation model.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the behavior of restricted mean survival time (RMST) and designs of a two-state Markov microsimulation model through a 2 × 4 × 2 full factorial experiment. METHOD: By projecting patient-wise 15-year-post-trial survival, we estimated life-year-gained between an intervention and a control group using data from the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies Study (COMPASS). Projections considered either in-trial events or post-trial medications. They were compared based on three factors: (i) choice of probability of death, (ii) lengths of cycle, and (iii) usage of half-a-cycle age correction. Three-way analysis of variance and post-hoc Tukey's Honest Significant Difference test compared means among factors. RESULTS: When both in-trial events and post-trial study medications were considered, monthly, quarterly, or semiannually were not different from one other in projected life-year-gained. However, the annual one was different from the others: mean and 95 percent confidence interval 252.2 (190.5-313.9) days monthly, 251.8 (192.0-311.6) quarterly, 249.1 (189.7-308.5) semiannually, and 240.8 (178.5-303.1) annually. The other two factors also impacted life-year-gained: background probability (269.1 [260.3-277.9] days projected with REACH-based-probabilities, 227.7 [212.6-242.8] with a USA life table); half-a-cycle age correction (245.5 [199.0-292] with correction and 251.4 [209.1-293.7] without correction). When not considering post-trial medications, only the choice of probability of death appeared to impact life-year-gained. CONCLUSION: For a large trial or cohort, to optimally project life-year-gained, one should consider using (i) annual projections, (ii) life table probabilities, (iii) in-trial events, and (iv) post-trial medication use.

Randomized Trials in Cardiac Surgery: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

Compared with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in medical specialties, RCTs in cardiac surgery face specific issues. Individual and collective equipoise, rapid evolution of the surgical techniques, as well as difficulties in obtaining funding, and limited education in clinical epidemiology in the surgical community are among the most important challenges in the design phase of the trial. Use of complex interventions and learning curve effect, differences in individual operators' expertise, difficulties in blinding, and slow recruitment make the successful completion of cardiac surgery RCTs particularly challenging. In fact, over the course of the last 20 years, the number of cardiac surgery RCTs has declined significantly. In this review, a team of surgeons, trialists, and epidemiologists discusses the most important challenges faced by RCTs in cardiac surgery and provides a list of suggestions for the successful design and completion of cardiac surgery RCTs.

Health economic evaluation of rivaroxaban in the treatment of patients with chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease.

AIMS: In the COMPASS trial, rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily (bid) plus acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) 100 mg once daily (od) performed better than ASA 100 mg od alone in reducing the rate of cardiovascular disease, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and peripheral artery disease (PAD). A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban plus ASA vs. ASA alone over a lifetime horizon, from the UK National Health System perspective. METHODS AND RESULTS: The base case analysis assumed that patients entered the model in the event-free health state, with the possibility to experience ≤2 events, transitioning every three-month cycle, through acute and post-acute health states of MI, ischaemic stroke (IS), or intracranial haemorrhage (ICH), and death. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life years-all discounted at 3.5%-and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted, as well as scenario analyses. In the model, patients on rivaroxaban plus ASA lived for an average of 14.0 years with no IS/MI/ICH, and gained 9.7 QALYs at a cost of £13 947, while those receiving ASA alone lived for an average of 12.7 years and gained 9.3 QALYs at a cost of £8126. The ICER was £16 360 per QALY. This treatment was cost-effective in 98% of 5000 iterations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30 000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: This Markov model suggests that rivaroxaban 2.5 mg bid plus ASA is a cost-effective alternative to ASA alone in patients with chronic CAD or PAD.

Sex-Specific Determinants of Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Background Women account for a large proportion of patients treated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement, yet there remain conflicting reports about the effect of sex on outcomes. Moreover, the sex-specific prevalence and prognostic impact of frailty has not been systematically studied in the context of transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Methods and Results A preplanned analysis of the FRAILTY-AVR study (Frailty Aortic Valve Replacement) was performed to analyze the determinants of outcomes in older women and men undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. FRAILTY-AVR was a multinational, prospective, observational cohort assembled at 14 institutions in North America and Europe from 2012 to 2017. Multivariable logistic regression models were stratified by sex and adjusted for covariates. Interaction between sex and each of these covariates was assessed. The primary outcome was 12-month mortality, and the secondary outcome was 1-month composite mortality or major morbidity. The cohort consisted of 340 women and 419 men. Women were older and had higher predicted risk of mortality. Women were more likely to have physical frailty traits, but not cognitive or psychosocial frailty traits, and global indices of frailty were similarly associated with adverse events regardless of sex. Women were more likely to require discharge to a rehabilitation facility, particularly those with physical frailty at baseline, although their functional status was similar to men at 12 months. The risk of 1-month mortality or major morbidity was greater in women, particularly those treated with larger prostheses. The risk of 12-month mortality was not greater in women, with the exception of those with pulmonary hypertension, in whom, there was a significant interaction for increased mortality. Conclusions The present study highlights sex-specific differences in older adults undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement and draws attention to the impact of physical frailty in women and their potential risk associated with oversized prostheses and pulmonary hypertension.

Examination of psychological risk factors for chronic pain following cardiac surgery: protocol for a prospective observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 400 000 Americans and 36 000 Canadians undergo cardiac surgery annually, and up to 56% will develop chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP). The primary aim of this study is to explore the association of pain-related beliefs and gender-based pain expectations on the development of CPSP. Secondary goals are to: (A) explore risk factors for poor functional status and patient-level cost of illness from a societal perspective up to 12 months following cardiac surgery; and (B) determine the impact of CPSP on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) borne by cardiac surgery, in addition to the incremental cost for one additional QALY gained, among those who develop CPSP compared with those who do not. METHODS AND ANALYSES: In this prospective cohort study, 1250 adults undergoing cardiac surgery, including coronary artery bypass grafting and open-heart procedures, will be recruited over a 3-year period. Putative risk factors for CPSP will be captured prior to surgery, at postoperative day 3 (in hospital) and day 30 (at home). Outcome data will be collected via telephone interview at 6-month and 12-month follow-up. We will employ generalised estimating equations to model the primary (CPSP) and secondary outcomes (function and cost) while adjusting for prespecified model covariates. QALYs will be estimated by converting data from the Short Form-12 (version 2) to a utility score. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol has been approved by the responsible bodies at each of the hospital sites, and study enrolment began May 2015. We will disseminate our results through CardiacPain.Net, a web-based knowledge dissemination platform, presentation at international conferences and publications in scientific journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01842568.

The cost implication of primary prevention in the HOPE 3 trial.

AIMS: The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation-3 (HOPE-3) found that rosuvastatin alone or with candesartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) (in a subgroup with hypertension) significantly lowered cardiovascular events compared with placebo in 12 705 individuals from 21 countries at intermediate risk and without cardiovascular disease. We assessed the costs implications of implementation in primary prevention in countries at different economic levels. METHODS AND RESULTS: Hospitalizations, procedures, study and non-study medications were documented. We applied country-specific costs to the healthcare resources consumed for each patient. We calculated the average cost per patient in US dollars for the duration of the study (5.6 years). Sensitivity analyses were also performed with cheapest equivalent substitutes. The combination of rosuvastatin with candesartan/HCT reduced total costs and was a cost-saving strategy in United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia. In contrast, the treatments were more expensive in developing countries even when cheapest equivalent substitutes were used. After adjustment for gross domestic product (GDP), the costs of cheapest equivalent substitutes in proportion to the health care costs were higher in developing countries in comparison to developed countries. CONCLUSION: Rosuvastatin and candesartan/HCT in primary prevention is a cost-saving approach in developed countries, but not in developing countries as both drugs and their cheapest equivalent substitutes are relatively more expensive despite adjustment by GDP. Reductions in costs of these drugs in developing countries are essential to make statins and blood pressure lowering drugs affordable and ensure their use. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: HOPE-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00468923.

Troponin T monitoring to detect myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery: a cost-consequence analysis.

BACKGROUND: Myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS) is a mostly asymptomatic condition that is strongly associated with 30-day mortality; however, it remains mostly undetected without systematic troponin T monitoring. We evaluated the cost and consequences of postoperative troponin T monitoring to detect MINS. METHODS: We conducted a model-based cost-consequence analysis to compare the impact of routine troponin T monitoring versus standard care (troponin T measurement triggered by ischemic symptoms) on the incidence of MINS detection. Model inputs were based on Canadian patients enrolled in the Vascular Events in Noncardiac Surgery Patients Cohort Evaluation (VISION) study, which enrolled patients aged 45 years or older undergoing inpatient noncardiac surgery. We conducted probability analyses with 10 000 iterations and extensive sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The data were based on 6021 patients (48% men, mean age 65 [standard deviation 12] yr). The 30-day mortality rate for MINS was 9.6%. We determined the incremental cost to avoid missing a MINS event as $1632 (2015 Canadian dollars). The cost-effectiveness of troponin monitoring was higher in patient subgroups at higher risk for MINS, e.g., those aged 65 years or more, or with a history of atherosclerosis or diabetes ($1309). CONCLUSION: The costs associated with a troponin T monitoring program to detect MINS were moderate. Based on the estimated incremental cost per health gain, implementation of postoperative troponin T monitoring seems appealing, particularly in patients at high risk for MINS.

CONTEXTE: Les lésions myocardiques après chirurgie non cardiaque (CNC) sont majoritairement asymptomatiques et fortement associées au risque de mortalité dans les 30 jours; toutefois, dans la plupart des cas, elles ne sont pas détectées en l'absence d'une surveillance systématique de la troponine T. Nous avons évalué les coûts et les conséquences d'une telle surveillance pour détecter les lésions myocardiques après CNC. MÉTHODES: Nous avons mené une analyse coût-conséquence modélisée pour comparer la surveillance systématique de la troponine T aux soins habituels seuls (mesure de la troponine T seulement s'il y a présence de symptômes d'ischémie) sur la fréquence de détection de lésions myocardiques après CNC. Les données ayant servi à l'analyse provenaient des patients canadiens ayant participé à l'étude de cohorte VISION, qui visait à évaluer les complications vasculaires chez les patients de 45 ans et plus ayant subi une CNC. Nous avons mené des analyses de probabilité avec 10  000 itérations et des analyses de sensibilité approfondies. RÉSULTATS: Les données portaient sur 6021 patients (48 % du sexe masculin; âge moyen de 65 ans [écart-type de 12 ans]). Le taux de mortalité dans les 30 jours associé à une lésion myocardique après CNC était de 9,6 %. Nous avons déterminé que le coût marginal de la détection de la présence d'une lésion par surveillance de la troponine T était de 1632 $ (dollars canadiens en 2015). Le rapport coût-efficacité était plus bas pour les sous-groupes de patients à risque élevé de lésion myocardique après CNC, comme les patients de 65 ans et plus ou ceux ayant des antécédents d'athérosclérose ou de diabète (1309 $), que pour leurs pairs. CONCLUSION: Les coûts associés à un programme de surveillance de la troponine T pour détecter les lésions myocardiques après CNC étaient modérés. Le coût marginal estimé par gain de santé indique que la mise en œuvre de ce type de programme pourrait être une option intéressante, surtout pour les patients à risque élevé de lésion myocardique après CNC.

The role of randomized cluster crossover trials for comparative effectiveness testing in anesthesia: design of the Benzodiazepine-Free Cardiac Anesthesia for Reduction in Postoperative Delirium (B-Free) trial.

Increasingly, clinicians and researchers recognize that studies of interventions need to evaluate not only their therapeutic efficacy (i.e., the effect on an outcome in ideal, controlled settings) but also their real-world effectiveness in broad, unselected patient groups. Effectiveness trials inform clinical practice by comparing variations in therapeutic approaches that fall within the standard of care. In this article, we discuss the need for studies of comparative effectiveness in anesthesia and the limitations of individual patient randomized-controlled trials in determining comparative effectiveness. We introduce the concept of randomized cluster crossover trials as a means of answering questions of comparative effectiveness in anesthesia, using the design of the Benzodiazepine-Free Cardiac Anesthesia for Reduction in Postoperative Delirium (B-Free) trial (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT03053869).

Off-pump Versus On-pump Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: Graft Patency Assessment With Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography: A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Pilot Study.

PURPOSE: A large multicenter randomized trial (RCT) is needed to assess off-pump coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) patency when performed by skilled surgeons. This prospective multicenter randomized pilot study compares graft patency after on-pump and off-pump techniques and addresses the feasibility of such an RCT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients were prospectively recruited for ≥64-slice computed tomography angiography graft patency assessment 1 year after randomization to off-pump or on-pump CABG. Blinded assessment of graft patency was performed, and the results were categorized as normal, ≥50% stenosis, or occlusion. A multilevel model with random effects on the patient was used to account for correlation of results in patients with multiple grafts. RESULTS: A total of 157 patients (3 centers, 84 off-pump and 73 on-pump patients, 512 grafts, assessability rate 98.4%) were included. Patency index (% nonoccluded grafts) was 89% for the off-pump technique and 95% for the on-pump technique (P=0.09). Patency was similar for arterial and vein grafts (both 92%; P=0.88), as well as between target territories (89% to 94%; P=0.53). CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, 1-year graft patency results after off-pump and on-pump surgery were similar. This feasibility trial demonstrates that a large multicenter RCT to compare CABG patency after on-pump with that after off-pump techniques is feasible and can be reliably undertaken using computed tomography angiography.

Five-Year Outcomes after Off-Pump or On-Pump Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported that there was no significant difference at 30 days or at 1 year in the rate of the composite outcome of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, or renal failure between patients who underwent coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) performed with a beating-heart technique (off-pump) and those who underwent CABG performed with cardiopulmonary bypass (on-pump). We now report the results at 5 years (the end of the trial). METHODS: A total of 4752 patients (from 19 countries) who had coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to undergo off-pump or on-pump CABG. For this report, we analyzed a composite outcome of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, renal failure, or repeat coronary revascularization (either CABG or percutaneous coronary intervention). The mean follow-up period was 4.8 years. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the off-pump group and the on-pump group in the rate of the composite outcome (23.1% and 23.6%, respectively; hazard ratio with off-pump CABG, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.10; P=0.72) or in the rates of the components of the outcome, including repeat coronary revascularization, which was performed in 2.8% of the patients in the off-pump group and in 2.3% of the patients in the on-pump group (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.73; P=0.29). The secondary outcome for the overall period of the trial - the mean cost in U.S. dollars per patient - also did not differ significantly between the off-pump group and the on-pump group ($15,107 and $14,992, respectively; between-group difference, $115; 95% CI, -$697 to $927). There were no significant between-group differences in quality-of-life measures. CONCLUSIONS: In our trial, the rate of the composite outcome of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, renal failure, or repeat revascularization at 5 years of follow-up was similar among patients who underwent off-pump CABG and those who underwent on-pump CABG. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; CORONARY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00463294 .).

Cost implication of an early invasive strategy on weekdays and weekends in patients with acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Early invasive intervention is associated with shorter length of stay (LOS) and similar outcomes in a delayed strategy in lower-risk patients with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS), but is superior in higher-risk patients. However, early invasive intervention might be constrained by the need to mobilize the on-call team on weekends. We evaluated costs associated with an early vs delayed invasive intervention strategy, including patients who present on weekends. METHODS: Health care utilization was extracted from the Timing of Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndromes (TIMACS) trial for Canadian patients from case report forms. Only direct costs were considered and only hospitalization events were included. Canadian unit costs were applied to health care resources consumed for all patients. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed. RESULTS: Early invasive intervention reduced LOS costs by $2808 (95% confidence interval [CI], $4,629-$987). Total costs per Canadian patient for early invasive intervention were $16,579 (95% CI, $14,949-$18,209) compared with $19,517 (95% CI, $17,897-$21,136) for the delayed invasive approach. This resulted in a savings of $2938 (95% CI, $5236-$640). Findings were confirmed using bootstrap simulation. Sensitivity analyses confirmed savings regardless of proportion of cases done on weekends. All subgroup costs favoured early intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Early invasive strategy was cost-saving, even on weekends, for Canadian NSTEACS patients because of significant LOS savings. Because many high-risk NSTEACS patients receive delayed intervention because of weekend catheterization laboratory status, these findings support opening catheterization laboratories on weekends to facilitate the use of early invasive intervention.

The cost implications of off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery at one year.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the cost implications of the Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Off or On Pump Revascularization Study (CORONARY) at 1 year. METHODS: Country-specific healthcare costs were obtained from public databases or local experts from each country in the CORONARY trial. Purchasing power parities were applied to these costs of consumed healthcare resources. Analyses of subgroups included in the CORONARY clinical trial were also conducted. Costs are reported in US dollars. RESULTS: After 1 year, the total cost per patient in the off-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) arm was $9,650 ($9,216 to $10,285) compared with $9,583 ($9,239 to $9,988) for the on-pump CABG arm; that resulted in a nonsignificant increase of $68 (-$575 to $710). Similar findings were noted for various subgroups. There were also no differences due to late conversions. CONCLUSIONS: The CORONARY trial demonstrated that off-pump CABG was clinically as safe and effective as on-pump CABG with no difference in costs. Thus, the decision as to which method to choose is free from costs considerations and should be based on patient preference and surgeon expertise (Coronary Artery Bypass Graft [CABG] Off or On Pump Revascularization Study [CORONARY]; clinicaltrials.gov NCT00463294).