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.

Clinical validation of a novel speckle-tracking-based ejection fraction assessment method.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility, accuracy, and reproducibility of a novel tracking-based echocardiographic ejection fraction (EF) assessment method in comparison with traditional methods based on magnetic resonance imaging and echocardiography. METHODS: In a prospective assessment, apical echocardiographic grayscale image loops from 81 patients were read in random order by four experienced readers, blinded to any data of the cases. In three separate sessions, EFs were estimated using biplane tracking-based assessment and according to the modified Simpson's rule, as well as by visual interpretation in three apical views. Data were compared with a reference EF derived from echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: On average, no significant difference was found between EF estimates of the different methods. Tracking-based EF assessments were possible in 90% of the patients. Tracking-based EF assessments showed slightly higher deviations from the reference EF than the modified Simpson's rule, while interobserver and intraobserver variability of tracking-based assessment were significantly better. Visual interpretation allowed the fastest EF assessment. Tracking-based EF assessment was approximately twice as fast as the modified Simpson's rule. CONCLUSIONS: Tracking-based EF assessment is feasible, has lower interobserver and intraobserver variability, and is faster than traditional echocardiographic EF quantification. Its minimal demand on user interaction makes it a favorable alternative to traditional echocardiographic approaches, with a particular clinical advantage when reliable follow-up measurements are needed.

Revascularization treatment of stable coronary artery disease.

INTRODUCTION: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the leading cause of mortality in developed countries. Angina, myocardial infarction, heart failure and other clinical manifestations of coronary atherosclerosis lead to considerable patient morbidity and constitute an increasingly heavy burden on health systems worldwide. AREAS COVERED: This article reviews the recent major developments in the treatment of CAD, which can be achieved using medical therapy either in isolation or in combination with revascularization, performed via coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There is no dispute that optimal medical treatment is the cornerstone of CAD management; however, timely revascularization offers superior symptom control in patients with severe symptoms and may also offer a survival advantage in some patients with diffuse disease and diabetes. Importantly, the advances in PCI technology, especially with the introduction of drug-eluting stents has narrowed the gap between CABG and PCI for the treatment of CAD. EXPERT OPINION: The continuous developments in diagnosis and treatment of CAD call for contemporary trials with detailed analysis to provide evidence that will help in the choice of the best and most cost-effective treatment strategy.