Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in postoperative atrial fibrillation: Cost-effectiveness analysis in a single-center, randomized, and prospective trial.

Objectives: Postoperative atrial fibrillation is the most common clinical complication after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. It is associated with a high risk of both stroke and death and increases the length of hospital stay and costs. This study aimed to evaluate anticoagulants in postoperative atrial fibrillation. Methods: A single-center, randomized, prospective, and open-label study. The trial was conducted in Heart Institute at University of São Paulo, Brazil. Patients who developed postoperative atrial fibrillation were randomized to anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or warfarin plus enoxaparin bridging. The primary objective was the cost-effectiveness evaluated by quality-adjusted life years, using the SF-6D questionnaire. The secondary end point was the combination of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, thromboembolic events, infections, bleeding, readmissions, and surgical reinterventions. The safety end point was any bleeding using the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis score. Follow-up period was 30 days after hospital discharge. Results: We analyzed 324 patients and 53 patients were randomized. The median cost-effectiveness was $1423.20 in the warfarin group versus $586.80 in the rivaroxaban group (P = .002). The median cost was lower in the rivaroxaban group, $450.20 versus $947.30 (P < .001). The secondary outcome was similar in both groups, 44.4% in warfarin group versus 38.5% in the rivaroxaban group (P = .65). Bleeding occured in 25.9% in the warfarin group versus 11.5% in the rivaroxaban group (P = .18). Conclusions: Rivaroxaban was more cost-effective when compared with warfarin associated with enoxaparin bridging in postoperative atrial fibrillation after isolated coronary artery bypass grafting.

Coronavirus disease-2019 and heart: assessment of troponin and cardiovascular comorbidities as prognostic markers in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease-2019 in a tertiary center in Brazil.

OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to evaluate the correlation of cardiac troponin T levels with comorbidities and in-hospital outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 in Brazil. METHODS: Data from a cohort of 3,596 patients who were admitted with suspected coronavirus disease-2019 in a Brazilian tertiary center, between March and August 2020, were reviewed. A total of 2,441 (68%) patients had cardiac troponin T determined in the first 72 h of admission and were stratified into two groups: elevated cardiac troponin T (cardiac troponin T >0.014 ng/mL) and normal cardiac troponin T. Associations between troponin, comorbidities, biomarkers, and outcomes were assessed. Regression models were built to assess the association of several variables with in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 2,441 patients were embraced, of which 924 (38%) had normal cardiac troponin T and 1,517 (62%) had elevated cardiac troponin T. Patients with elevated cardiac troponin T were older and had more comorbidities, such as cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, arrhythmia, renal dysfunction, liver disease, stroke, cancer, and dementia. Patients with abnormal cardiac troponin T also had more altered laboratory parameters on admission (i.e., leukocytes, C-reactive protein, D-dimer, and B-type natriuretic peptide), as well as more need for intensive care unit, vasoactive drugs, mechanical ventilation, dialysis, and blood transfusion. All-cause mortality was markedly higher among patients with increased cardiac troponin T (42 vs. 16%, P<0.001). Multiple regression analysis demonstrated that in-hospital mortality was not independently associated with troponin elevation. CONCLUSION: This study showed that cardiac troponin T elevation at admission was common and associated with several comorbidities, biomarkers, and clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease-2019, but it was not an independent marker of in-hospital mortality.

Coronavirus disease-2019 and heart: assessment of troponin and cardiovascular comorbidities as prognostic markers in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease-2019 in a tertiary center in Brazil

SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to evaluate the correlation of cardiac troponin T levels with comorbidities and in-hospital outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 in Brazil. METHODS: Data from a cohort of 3,596 patients who were admitted with suspected coronavirus disease-2019 in a Brazilian tertiary center, between March and August 2020, were reviewed. A total of 2,441 (68%) patients had cardiac troponin T determined in the first 72 h of admission and were stratified into two groups: elevated cardiac troponin T (cardiac troponin T >0.014 ng/mL) and normal cardiac troponin T. Associations between troponin, comorbidities, biomarkers, and outcomes were assessed. Regression models were built to assess the association of several variables with in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 2,441 patients were embraced, of which 924 (38%) had normal cardiac troponin T and 1,517 (62%) had elevated cardiac troponin T. Patients with elevated cardiac troponin T were older and had more comorbidities, such as cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, arrhythmia, renal dysfunction, liver disease, stroke, cancer, and dementia. Patients with abnormal cardiac troponin T also had more altered laboratory parameters on admission (i.e., leukocytes, C-reactive protein, D-dimer, and B-type natriuretic peptide), as well as more need for intensive care unit, vasoactive drugs, mechanical ventilation, dialysis, and blood transfusion. All-cause mortality was markedly higher among patients with increased cardiac troponin T (42 vs. 16%, P<0.001). Multiple regression analysis demonstrated that in-hospital mortality was not independently associated with troponin elevation. CONCLUSION: This study showed that cardiac troponin T elevation at admission was common and associated with several comorbidities, biomarkers, and clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease-2019, but it was not an independent marker of in-hospital mortality.

Hypotheses, rationale, design, and methods for prognostic evaluation of a randomized comparison between patients with coronary artery disease associated with ischemic cardiomyopathy who undergo medical or surgical treatment: MASS-VI (HF).

BACKGROUND: Ischemic cardiomyopathy and severe left ventricular dysfunction are well established to represent the main determinants of poor survival and premature death compared with preserved ventricular function. However, the role of myocardial revascularization as a therapeutic alternative is not known to improve the long-term prognosis in this group of patients. This study will investigate whether myocardial revascularization contributes to a better prognosis for patients compared with those treated with drugs alone and followed over the long term. METHODS: The study will include 600 patients with coronary artery disease associated with ischemic cardiomyopathy. The surgical or drug therapy option will be randomized, and the events considered for analysis will be all-cause mortality, nonfatal infarction, unstable angina requiring additional revascularization, and stroke. The events will be analyzed according to the intent-to-treat principle. Patients with multivessel coronary disease and left ventricular ejection fraction measurements of less than 35% will be included. In addition, myocardial ischemia will be documented by myocardial scintigraphy. Markers of myocardial necrosis will be checked at admission and after the procedure. DISCUSSION: The role of myocardial revascularization (CABG) in the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease and heart failure is not clearly established. The surgical option of revascularizing the myocardium is a procedure designed to reduce the load of myocardial hibernation in patients with heart failure caused by coronary artery disease. On the other hand, the assessment of myocardial viability is frequently used to identify patients with left ventricular ischemic dysfunction in which CABG may add survival benefit. However, the effectiveness of this option is uncertain. The great difficulty in establishing the efficacy of surgical intervention is based on the understanding of viability without ischemia. Thus, this study will include only patients with viable and truly ischemic myocardium to correct this anomaly. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Evaluation of a randomized comparison between patients with coronary artery disease associated with ischemic cardiomyopathy submitted to medical or surgical treatment: MASS-VI (HF), ISRCTN77449548, Oct 10th, 2019 (retrospectively registered).

Cost-effectiveness of on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting for patients with coronary artery disease: Results from the MASS III trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent trials have reported similar clinical outcomes between on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). However, long-term cost-effectiveness of these strategies is unknown. METHODS: A prespecified economic study was performed based on the MASS III trial. Costs were estimated for all patients based on observed healthcare resource usage over a 5-year follow-up. Health state utilities were evaluated with the SF-6D questionnaire. Cost-effectiveness was assessed as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained using a Markov model. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis with the Monte-Carlo simulation and cost-effectiveness acceptability curve were used to address uncertainty. RESULTS: Quality of life improved significantly in both groups during follow-up compared with baseline. At 5 years, when comparing on-pump and off-pump CABG groups, no differences were found in cumulative life-years (4.851 and 4.766 years, P = .319) and QALY gained (4.150 and 4.105 QALYs, P = .332). Mean cost in US dollars per patient during the trial did not differ significantly between the on-pump and off-pump groups ($5890.29 and $5674.75, respectively, P = .409). Over a lifetime horizon, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of on-pump versus off-pump CABG was $12,576 per QALY gained, which is above the suggested cost-effectiveness threshold range (from $3210 to 10,122). In the sensitivity analysis, the probability that on-pump CABG is cost-effective compared to off-pump surgery for a willingness-to-pay threshold of $3212 per QALY gained was <1%. For the $10,122 per QALY threshold, the same probability was 35%. CONCLUSION: This decision-analytic model suggests that on-pump CABG is not cost-effective when compared to off-pump CABG from a public health system perspective.

Cost-effectiveness analysis for surgical, angioplasty, or medical therapeutics for coronary artery disease: 5-year follow-up of medicine, angioplasty, or surgery study (MASS) II trial.

BACKGROUND: The Second Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS II) included patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and normal systolic ventricular function. Patients underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG, n=203), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI, n=205), or medical treatment alone (MT, n=203). This investigation compares the economic outcome at 5-year follow-up of the 3 therapeutic strategies. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed cumulative costs during a 5-year follow-up period. To analyze the cost-effectiveness, adjustment was made on the cumulative costs for average event-free time and angina-free proportion. Respectively, for event-free survival and event plus angina-free survival, MT presented 3.79 quality-adjusted life-years and 2.07 quality-adjusted life-years; PCI presented 3.59 and 2.77 quality-adjusted life-years; and CABG demonstrated 4.4 and 2.81 quality-adjusted life-years. The event-free costs were $9071.00 for MT; $19,967.00 for PCI; and $18,263.00 for CABG. The paired comparison of the event-free costs showed that there was a significant difference favoring MT versus PCI (P<0.01) and versus CABG (P<0.01) and CABG versus PCI (P=0.01). The event-free plus angina-free costs were $16,553.00, $25,831.00, and $24,614.00, respectively. The paired comparison of the event-free plus angina-free costs showed that there was a significant difference favoring MT versus PCI (P=0.04), and versus CABG (P<0.001); there was no difference between CABG and PCI (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In the long-term economic analysis, for the prevention of a composite primary end point, MT was more cost effective than CABG, and CABG was more cost-effective than PCI. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: www.controlled-trials.com. REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN66068876.