Differences in Treatment Patterns and Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction for Low- and High-Income Patients in 6 Countries.

Importance: Differences in the organization and financing of health systems may produce more or less equitable outcomes for advantaged vs disadvantaged populations. We compared treatments and outcomes of older high- and low-income patients across 6 countries. Objective: To determine whether treatment patterns and outcomes for patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction differ for low- vs high-income individuals across 6 countries. Design, Setting, and Participants: Serial cross-sectional cohort study of all adults aged 66 years or older hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction from 2013 through 2018 in the US, Canada, England, the Netherlands, Taiwan, and Israel using population-representative administrative data. Exposures: Being in the top and bottom quintile of income within and across countries. Main Outcomes and Measures: Thirty-day and 1-year mortality; secondary outcomes included rates of cardiac catheterization and revascularization, length of stay, and readmission rates. Results: We studied 289 376 patients hospitalized with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and 843 046 hospitalized with non-STEMI (NSTEMI). Adjusted 30-day mortality generally was 1 to 3 percentage points lower for high-income patients. For instance, 30-day mortality among patients admitted with STEMI in the Netherlands was 10.2% for those with high income vs 13.1% for those with low income (difference, -2.8 percentage points [95% CI, -4.1 to -1.5]). One-year mortality differences for STEMI were even larger than 30-day mortality, with the highest difference in Israel (16.2% vs 25.3%; difference, -9.1 percentage points [95% CI, -16.7 to -1.6]). In all countries, rates of cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention were higher among high- vs low-income populations, with absolute differences ranging from 1 to 6 percentage points (eg, 73.6% vs 67.4%; difference, 6.1 percentage points [95% CI, 1.2 to 11.0] for percutaneous intervention in England for STEMI). Rates of coronary artery bypass graft surgery for patients with STEMI in low- vs high-income strata were similar but for NSTEMI were generally 1 to 2 percentage points higher among high-income patients (eg, 12.5% vs 11.0% in the US; difference, 1.5 percentage points [95% CI, 1.3 to 1.8 ]). Thirty-day readmission rates generally also were 1 to 3 percentage points lower and hospital length of stay generally was 0.2 to 0.5 days shorter for high-income patients. Conclusions and Relevance: High-income individuals had substantially better survival and were more likely to receive lifesaving revascularization and had shorter hospital lengths of stay and fewer readmissions across almost all countries. Our results suggest that income-based disparities were present even in countries with universal health insurance and robust social safety net systems.

Impact of medicaid expansion on disparities in revascularization in patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction.

INTRODUCTION: Blacks are more likely to live in poverty and be uninsured, and are less likely to undergo revascularization after am acute myocardial infarction compared to whites. The objective of this study was to determine whether Medicaid expansion was associated with a reduction in revascularization disparities in patients admitted with an acute myocardial infarction. METHODS: Retrospective analysis study using data (2010-2018) from hospitals participating in the University Health Systems Consortium, now renamed the Vizient Clinical Database. Comparative interrupted time series analysis was used to compare changes in the use of revascularization therapies (PCI and CABG) in white versus non-Hispanic black patients hospitalized with either ST-segment elevation (STEMI) or non-ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarctions (NSTEMI) after Medicaid expansion. RESULTS: The analytic cohort included 68,610 STEMI and 127,378 NSTEMI patients. The percentage point decrease in the uninsured rate for STEMIs and NSTEMIs was greater for blacks in expansion states compared to whites in expansion states. For patients with STEMIs, differences in black versus white revascularization rates decreased by 2.09 percentage points per year (95% CI, 0.29-3.88, P = 0.023) in expansion versus non-expansion states after adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics. Black patients hospitalized with STEMI in non-expansion states experienced a 7.24 percentage point increase in revascularization rate in 2014 (95% CI, 2.83-11.7, P < 0.001) but did not experience significant annual percentage point increases in the rate of revascularization in subsequent years (1.52; 95% CI, -0.51-3.55, P = 0.14) compared to whites in non-expansion states. Medicaid expansion was not associated with changes in the revascularization rate for either blacks or whites hospitalized with NSTEMIs. CONCLUSION: Medicaid expansion was associated with greater reductions in the number of uninsured blacks compared to uninsured whites. Medicaid expansion was not associated, however, with a reduction in revascularization disparities between black and white patients admitted with acute myocardial infarctions.

Characteristics of Contemporary Randomized Clinical Trials and Their Association With the Trial Funding Source in Invasive Cardiovascular Interventions.

Importance: Changes in evidence-based practice and guideline recommendations depend on high-quality randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Commercial device and pharmaceutical manufacturers are frequently involved in the funding, design, conduct, and reporting of trials, the implications of which have not been recently analyzed. Objective: To evaluate the design, outcomes, and reporting of contemporary randomized clinical trials of invasive cardiovascular interventions and their association with the funding source. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed published RCTs between January 1, 2008, to May 31, 2019. The trials included those involving coronary, vascular and structural interventional cardiology, and vascular and cardiac surgical procedures. Main Outcomes and Measures: We assessed (1) trial characteristics, (2) finding of a statistically significant difference in the primary end point favoring the experimental intervention, (3) reporting of implied treatment advantage in trials without significant differences in primary end point, (4) existence of major discrepancies between registered and published primary outcomes, (5) number of patients whose outcomes would need to switch from a nonevent to an event to convert a significant difference in primary end point to nonsignificant, and (6) association with funding source. Results: Of the 216 RCTs analyzed, 115 (53.2%) reported having commercial sponsorship. Most trials had 80% power to detect an estimated treatment effect of 30%, and 128 trials (59.3%) used composite primary end points. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) sample size was 502 (204-1702) patients, and the median (IQR) follow-up duration was 12 (1.0-14.4) months. Overall, 123 trials (57.0%) reported a statistically significant difference in the primary outcome favoring the experimental intervention; reporting strategies that implied an advantage were identified in 55 (65.5%) of 84 trials that reported nonsignificant differences. Commercial sponsorship was associated with a statistically significantly greater likelihood of favorable outcomes reporting (exponent of regression coefficient ß, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.09-7.18; P = .03) and with the reporting of findings that are inconsistent with the trial results. Discrepancies between the registered and published primary outcomes were found in 82 trials (38.0%), without differences in trial sponsorship. A median (IQR) number of 5 (2.8-12.5) patients experiencing a different outcome would have change statistically significant results to nonsignificant. Commercial sponsorship was associated with a greater number of patients (exponent of regression coefficient ß, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.00-1.66; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: These results suggest that contemporary RCTs of invasive cardiovascular interventions are relatively small and fragile, have short follow-up, and have limited power to detect large treatment effects. Commercial support appeared to be associated with differences in trial design, results, and reporting.

Comparison of NICE and ESC proposed strategies on new onset chest pain and the contemporary clinical utility of pretest probability risk score.

AIMS: Patients with de novo chest pain are usually investigated non-invasively. The new UK-National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines recommend CT coronary angiography (CTCA) for all patients, while European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommends functional tests. We sought to compare the clinical utility and perform a cost analysis of these recommendations in two UK centres with different primary investigative strategies. METHODSRESULTS: We compared two groups of patients, group A (n=667) and group B (n=654), with new onset chest pain in two neighbouring National Health Service hospitals, each primarily following either ESC (group A) or NICE (group B) guidance. We assessed the clinical utility of each strategy, including progression to invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and revascularisation. We present a retrospective cost analysis in the context of UK tariff for stress echo (£176), CTCA (£220) and ICA (£1001). Finally, we sought to identify predictors of revascularisation in the whole population.Baseline characteristics in both groups were similar. The progression to ICA was comparable (9.9% vs 12.0%, p=0.377), with similar requirement for revascularisation (4.0% vs 5.0%.; p=0.532). The average cost of investigations per investigated patient was lower in group A (£279.66 vs £325.77), saving £46.11 per patient. The ESC recommended risk score (RS) was found to be the only predictor of revascularisation (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.06; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Both NICE and ESC-proposed strategies led to similar rates of ICA and need for revascularisation in discrete, but similar groups of patients. The SE-first approach had a lower overall cost by £46.11 per patient, and the ESC RS was the only variable correlated to revascularisation.

Cost-effectiveness of myocardial perfusion SPECT and stress test according to coronary revascularization therapy, cardiac events and total mortality: Register of 8,496 patients. / Coste-efectividad de la SPECT de perfusión miocárdica y de la prueba de esfuerzo en relación con la revascularización coronaria, eventos cardíacos y mortalidad total. Registro de 8.496 pacientes.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to analyze the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) of stress electrocardiogram (ES) and stress myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT-MPI) according to coronary revascularization (CR) therapy, cardiac events (CE) and total mortality (TM). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 8,496 consecutive patients who underwent SPECT-MPI were followed-up (mean 5.3±3.5years). Cost-effectiveness for coronary bypass (CABG) or percutaneous CR (PCR) (45.6%/54.4%) according to combined electrocardiographic ischemia and scintigraphic ischemia were evaluated. Effectiveness was evaluated as TM, CE, life-year saved observed (LYSO) and CE-LYSO; costs analyses were conducted from the perspective of the health care payer. A sensitivity analysis was performed considering current CABG/PCR ratios (12%/88%). RESULTS: When electrocardiogram and SPECT approaches are combined, the cost-effectiveness values for CABG ranged between 112,589€ (electrocardiographic and scintigraphic ischemia) and 2,814,715€ (without ischemia)/event avoided, 38,664 and 2,221,559€/LYSO; for PCR ranged between 18,824€ (electrocardiographic and scintigraphic ischemia) and 46,377€ (without ischemia)/event avoided, 6,464 and 36,604€/LYSO. To CE: the cost-effectiveness values of the CABG and CPR in presence of electrocardiographic and scintigraphic ischemia were 269,904€/CE-avoided and 24,428€/CE-avoided, respectively; and the €/LYSO of the CABG and PCR were 152,488 and 13,801, respectively. The RCE was maintained for the current proportion of revascularized patients (12%/88%). CONCLUSIONS: Combined ES and SPECT-MPI results, allows differentiation between patient groups, where the PCR and CABG are more cost-effective in different economic frameworks. The major CER in relation to CR, CE and TM occurs in patients with electrocardiographic and scintigraphic ischemia. PCR is more cost-effective than CABG.

Cost-effectiveness for imaging stable ischemic disease.

Stable ischemic heart disease remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Although there are multiple imaging modalities to diagnose and/or assist in the clinical management, the most cost-effective approach remains unclear. We reviewed the relevant and recent evidence-based clinical studies and trials to suggest the most cost-effective approach to stable ischemic heart disease. The limitations of these studies are discussed. Incorporating the results of recent multicenter trials, we suggest that for appropriate patients with coronary artery disease with any degree of stenosis or presence of coronary calcium, optimal medical therapy may be most cost-effective. Invasive coronary angiography and/or coronary revascularization would be primarily for non-responders or >/=50% left main stenosis. Stress cardiac magnetic imaging would be performed for those patients with non-diagnostic coronary CT angiography from motion and non-responders from optimal medical therapy in non-diagnostic coronary CT angiography group from high coronary calcium. These paths seem to be safe and cost-effective but requires modeling for confirmation.

Revascularization Rates and Associated Costs in Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease Initiating Ranolazine Versus Traditional Antianginals as Add-on Therapy.

To assess the frequency and costs of revascularization procedures in patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) initiating ranolazine versus traditional antianginals. Adults (≥18 years) with a diagnosis of SIHD who initiated ranolazine or a traditional antianginal (beta-blocker [BB], calcium channel blocker [CCB], or long-acting nitrate [LAN]) as second or third line therapy between 2008 and 2016, were selected from the IBM MarketScan Databases. Inverse probability weighting based on propensity score was employed to balance the ranolazine and traditional antianginals cohorts on patient clinical characteristics. Outcomes assessed were frequency and total cost of revascularization procedures over a 12-month follow-up. A total of 108,741 patients with SIHD were included. Of these, 18% initiated treatment with ranolazine, 21% received BBs, 24% received CCBs, and 37% were treated with LANs. Revascularization rates were significantly lower in ranolazine patients (11%) than in BB (16%) and LAN (14%) patients (both p <0.001), and more comparable to CCB patients (10%; p = 0.007). Compared with BB and LAN, those in the ranolazine cohort were less likely to have a revascularization procedure during hospitalization and had a shorter length of stay if hospitalized (all p <0.001). The mean healthcare costs associated with revascularization were lower in ranolazine patients ($2,933) than in BB ($4,465) and LAN ($3,609) patients (p <0.001), but similar to CCB patients ($2,753; p = 0.29). In conclusion, ranolazine treatment in patients with SIHD was associated with fewer revascularization procedures and lower associated healthcare costs compared with patients initiating BB or LAN, and comparable to patients initiating CCBs.

In-Hospital Management and Outcomes After ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Medicaid Beneficiaries Compared With Privately Insured Individuals.

BACKGROUND: Medicaid expansion among previously uninsured individuals has led to improved healthcare access. However, considerably lower reimbursement rates of Medicaid have raised concerns on the unintended consequence of lower utilization of life-saving therapies and inferior outcomes compared with private insurance. We examined the rates of revascularization and in-hospital mortality among Medicaid beneficiaries versus privately insured individuals hospitalized with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). METHODS AND RESULTS: We queried the National Inpatient Sample from 2012 to 2015 for STEMI hospitalizations with Medicaid or private insurance as primary payer. Hospitalizations with the following criteria were excluded: (1) age <18 or ≥65 years, (2) transfer to another acute care facility, and (3) left against medical advice. Outcomes were compared in propensity score-matched cohort based on demographics, socioeconomic status (income based), clinical comorbidities, including drug and alcohol use, STEMI acuity (cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock), and hospital characteristics. A total of 42 645 and 171 545 STEMI hospitalizations were identified as having Medicaid and private insurance, respectively. In unadjusted analyses, Medicaid beneficiaries with STEMI had lower rates of coronary revascularization (88.9% versus 92.3%; odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.65-0.70) and higher rates of in-hospital mortality (4.9% versus 2.8%; odds ratio, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.72-1.91) compared with privately insured individuals ( P<0.001 for both). In propensity-matched cohort of 40 870 hospitalizations per group, similar results for lower rates of revascularization (89.1% versus 91.1%; odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.76-0.84) and higher in-hospital mortality (4.9% versus 3.7%; odds ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.26-1.45) were observed in Medicaid compared with private insurance, despite extensive matching ( P<0.001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid beneficiaries with STEMI had lower rates of revascularization, although small absolute difference, and higher in-hospital mortality compared with privately insured individuals. Further studies are needed to identify and understand the variation in STEMI outcomes by insurance status.

Impact of complications of myocardial revascularization surgery on expenses during Hospital Stay / Impacto das complicações da cirurgia de revascularização do miocárdio nas despesas durante internação hospitalar

Background: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is an important treatment option for obstructive coronary artery disease, but it represents a high expense for paying sources.The complications of CABG impose an additional expense to the procedure that is not yet clearly established. Objective: To determine the economic impact of postoperative complications of CABG during hospitalization in a hospital of the unified health system (SUS). Methods: This is an observational study involving 240 patients undergoing isolated CABG in a reference hospital in cardiology in 2013. Patients aged over 30 years with proven coronary artery disease and indication to perform CRVM were included. Patients who performed CRVM associated with other procedures were excluded. Results: The average cost of hospitalization was R$ 22,647.24 (SD = R$ 28,105.66). In 97 patients who presented some complication the average cost was R$ 35,400.28 (SD = R$ 40,509.47), and in the 143 patients without complications the average cost was R$ 13,996.57 (SD = R$ 5,800.61) (p < 0.001). Expenditures ranged from R$ 17,344.37 in patients with one complication up to R$ 104,596.52 in patients with five complications (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The occurrence of complications during hospitalization for CABG dignificantly increases the costs of the procedure, but the magnitude of this increase depends on the type of complication developed, and higher expenses related to cardiovascular complications, infections and bleeding. With this information, managers can improve the allocation of resources to health

Medicare Accountable Care Organizations Are Not Associated With Reductions in the Use of Low-Value Coronary Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: Because specialty care accounts for half of Medicare expenditures, improving its value is critical to the success of Medicare accountable care organizations (ACOs) in curbing spending growth. However, whether ACOs have reduced low-value specialty care without compromising use of high-value services remains unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using national Medicare data, we identified 2 cohorts: beneficiaries for whom the value of coronary revascularization is lower (those with ischemic heart disease without angina, congestive heart failure, or recent admission for acute myocardial infarction) and beneficiaries for whom its value is higher (those with recent acute myocardial infarction admission). We then determined the provider groups who cared for the cohorts, distinguishing between those participating (n=298) and those not participating in a Medicare ACO (1329). After measuring the provider groups' use of coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention among the 2 cohorts, we fit multivariable models to test the statistical significance of rates of change in low- and high-value revascularization after ACO participation. During the pre-ACO period, participating and nonparticipating provider groups had similar rates of low- and high-value revascularization. Our multivariable model results show that rates of change for low- and high-value coronary revascularization were not altered by a provider group's participation in a Medicare ACO (lower value: difference, -0.04 per year; 95% confidence interval, -0.11 to 0.03; higher value: difference, 0.96 per year; 95% confidence interval, -0.46 to 2.4). CONCLUSIONS: We found no association between provider group participation in a Medicare ACO and use of low- or high-value coronary revascularization.

Impacto dos fatores de risco para doença arterial coronatriana nos gastos hospitalares dos pacientes submetidos à cirurgia de revascularização do miocárdio no SUS / Impact of risk factors for coronary artery disease on hospital costs of patients undergoing myocardial revascularization surgery in the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS)

Background: Cardiovascular diseases are a major cause of mortality and morbidity. Myocardial revascularization surgery may be indicated for the relief of symptoms and to reduce mortality. However, surgery is a costly procedure and the impact of the number of cardiovascular risk factors on the cost of the procedure has not been established. Objectives: To identify the impact of risk factors for coronary artery disease on myocardial revascularization surgery cost. Methods: We selected 239 patients undergoing myocardial revascularization surgery at the National Institute of Cardiology in the period from 01 January to 31 December 2013. We included patients aged over 30 years, with indication for the procedure. Patients undergoing combined procedures were excluded. Results: Seven patients had only one risk factor, 32 patients had two risk factors, 75 patients had 3 risk factors, 78 patients had four risk factors, 36 patients had 5 risk factors and 11 patients presented 6 risk factors. The total costs, on average, was R$ 14,143.22 in the group with 1 risk factor, R$ 18,380.40 in the group with 2 risk factors, R$ 21,229.51 in the group with 3 risk factors, R$ 24,620.86 in the group with 4 risk factors, R$ 21,337.92 in the group with 5 risk factors and R$ 36,098,35 in the group with 6 risk factors (p = 0.441). Conclusion: This study demonstrates that, in a public referral center for highly complex cardiology procedures, there was no significant correlation between the number of cardiovascular risk factors and hospitalization costs

Fundamentos: As doenças cardiovasculares representam uma importante causa de mortalidade e morbidade. A cirurgia de revascularização do miocárdio pode ser indicada para o alívio dos sintomas e para diminuir a mortalidade. Entretanto, a cirurgia é um procedimento de custo elevado e não está estabelecido o impacto do número de fatores de risco cardiovasculares nos gastos do procedimento. Objetivos: Identificar o impacto dos fatores de risco para a doença arterial coronariana nos gastos com a cirurgia de revascularização do miocárdio. Métodos: Foram selecionados 239 pacientes submetidos à cirurgia de revascularização do miocárdio isolada no Instituto Nacional de Cardiologia no período entre 01 de Janeiro a 31 de Dezembro de 2013. Foram incluídos pacientes com idade superior a 30 anos e indicação de revascularização cirúrgica do miocárdio. Foram excluídos os pacientes submetidos a procedimentos combinados. Resultados: Sete pacientes apresentaram apenas 1 fator de risco, 32 pacientes apresentaram 2 fatores de risco, 75 pacientes apresentaram 3 fatores de risco, 78 pacientes apresentaram 4 fatores de risco, 36 pacientes apresentaram 5 fatores de risco e 11 pacientes apresentaram 6 fatores de risco. O total dos gastos, em média, foi de R$ 14 143,22 no grupo com 1 fator de risco, R$ 18 380,40 no grupo com 2 fatores de risco, R$ 21 229,51 no grupo com 3 fatores de risco, R$ 24 620,86 no grupo com 4 fatores de risco, R$ 21 337,92 no grupo com 5 fatores de risco e R$ 36 098,35 no grupo com 6 fatores de risco (p = 0,441). Conclusão: Este trabalho demonstra que, em uma unidade pública de referência para a realização de procedimentos cardiológicos de alta complexidade, não houve uma correlação significativa entre o número de fatores de risco cardiovascular e os custos da internação

Comparison of Accessibility, Cost, and Quality of Elective Coronary Revascularization Between Veterans Affairs and Community Care Hospitals.

Importance: The Veterans Affairs (VA) Community Care (CC) Program supplements VA care with community-based medical services. However, access gains and value provided by CC have not been well described. Objectives: To compare the access, cost, and quality of elective coronary revascularization procedures between VA and CC hospitals and to evaluate if procedural volume or publicly reported quality data can be used to identify high-value care. Design, Setting, and Participants: Observational cohort study of veterans younger than 65 years undergoing an elective coronary revascularization, controlling for differences in risk factors using propensity adjustment. The setting was VA and CC hospitals. Participants were veterans undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and veterans undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) procedures between October 1, 2008, and September 30, 2011. The analysis was conducted between July 2014 and July 2017. Exposures: Receipt of an elective coronary revascularization at a VA vs CC facility. Main Outcomes and Measures: Access to care as measured by travel distance, 30-day mortality, and costs. Results: In the 3 years ending on September 30, 2011, a total of 13 237 elective PCIs (79.1% at the VA) and 5818 elective CABG procedures (83.6% at the VA) were performed in VA or CC hospitals among veterans meeting study inclusion criteria. On average, use of CC was associated with reduced net travel by 53.6 miles for PCI and by 73.3 miles for CABG surgery compared with VA-only care. Adjusted 30-day mortality after PCI was higher in CC compared with VA (1.54% for CC vs 0.65% for VA, P < .001) but was similar after CABG surgery (1.33% for CC vs 1.51% for VA, P = .74). There were no differences in adjusted 30-day readmission rates for PCI (7.04% for CC vs 7.73% for VA, P = .66) or CABG surgery (8.13% for CC vs 7.00% for VA, P = .28). The mean adjusted PCI cost was higher in CC ($22 025 for CC vs $15 683 for VA, P < .001). The mean adjusted CABG cost was lower in CC ($55 526 for CC vs $63 144 for VA, P < .01). Neither procedural volume nor publicly reported mortality data identified hospitals that provided higher-value care with the exception that CABG mortality was lower in small-volume CC hospitals. Conclusions and Relevance: In this veteran cohort, PCIs performed in CC hospitals were associated with shorter travel distance but with higher mortality, higher costs, and minimal travel savings compared with VA hospitals. The CABG procedures performed in CC hospitals were associated with shorter travel distance, similar mortality, and lower costs. As the VA considers expansion of the CC program, ongoing assessments of value and access gains are essential to optimize veteran outcomes and VA spending.

Long-term clinical outcomes, health-related quality of life, and costs in different treatment modalities of stable coronary artery disease.

Aims: This study is a prospective, observational 8-year follow-up of 300 stable unselected coronary artery disease patients entering elective coronary angiography in 2002-03. Recorded were clinical outcomes, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and secondary care costs after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or medical therapy (MT). Methods and results: HRQoL was measured by the 15D instrument at baseline, 6 months, and 8 years. Regression techniques with an adjustment for relevant baseline characteristics were used to compare the 8-year survival and change in HRQoL between the groups. At baseline, all groups had statistically significantly impaired HRQoL compared with age- and gender-standardized general population. Six months after invasive interventions the mean HRQoL score had improved in a statistically significant and clinically important manner. This improvement was maintained at 8 years as the HRQoL no longer differed from that of the general population, whereas MT patients were still worse off. However, after adjustment for baseline characteristics, the groups no longer differed regarding 8-year survival or change in HRQoL among survivors. Mean 8-year secondary care costs were without (with) adjustment for baseline characteristics: €17 498 (16 730) for CABG, €7245 (6920) for PCI, and €4514 (4580) for MT, respectively. Conclusion: When adjusted for baseline characteristics, no statistically significant differences were found between the patient groups in 8-year survival or change in HRQoL among survivors. The 8-year mean secondary care costs of CABG were over two-fold and almost four-fold, even after adjustment for baseline characteristics, compared with those of PCI and MT.

Economic Evaluation of Complete Revascularization for Patients with Multivessel Disease Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the cost-effectiveness of complete revascularization at index admission compared with infarct-related artery (IRA) treatment only, in patients with multivessel disease undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (P-PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. METHODS: An economic evaluation of a multicenter randomized trial was conducted, comparing complete revascularization at index admission to IRA-only P-PCI in patients with multivessel disease (12-month follow-up). Overall hospital costs (costs for P-PCI procedure(s), hospital length of stay, and any subsequent re-admissions) were estimated. Outcomes were major adverse cardiac events (MACEs, a composite of all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction, heart failure, and ischemia-driven revascularization) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) derived from the three-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire. Multiple imputation was undertaken. The mean incremental cost and effect, with associated 95% confidence intervals, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve were estimated. RESULTS: On the basis of 296 patients, the mean incremental overall hospital cost for complete revascularization was estimated to be -£215.96 (-£1390.20 to £958.29), compared with IRA-only, with a per-patient mean reduction in MACEs of 0.170 (0.044 to 0.296) and a QALY gain of 0.011 (-0.019 to 0.041). According to the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, the probability of complete revascularization being cost-effective was estimated to be 72.0% at a willingness-to-pay threshold value of £20,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Complete revascularization at index admission was estimated to be more effective (in terms of MACEs and QALYs) and cost-effective (overall costs were estimated to be lower and complete revascularization thereby dominated IRA-only). There was, however, some uncertainty associated with this decision.

The STRATEGY Study (Stress Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Versus Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography for the Management of Symptomatic Revascularized Patients): Resources and Outcomes Impact.

BACKGROUND: Computed tomography coronary angiography (cTCA) and stress cardiac magnetic resonance (stress-CMR) are suitable tools for diagnosing obstructive coronary artery disease in symptomatic patients with previous history of revascularization. However, performance appraisal of noninvasive tests must take in account the consequent diagnostic testing, invasive procedures, clinical outcomes, radiation exposure, and cumulative costs rather than their diagnostic accuracy only. We aimed to compare an anatomic (cTCA) versus a functional (stress-CMR) strategy in symptomatic patients with previous myocardial revascularization procedures. METHODS AND RESULTS: Six hundred patients with chest pain and previous revascularization included in a prospective observational registry and evaluated by clinically indicated cTCA (n=300, mean age 68.2±9.7 years, male 255) or stress-CMR (n=300, mean age 67.6±9.7 years, male 263) were enrolled and followed-up in terms of subsequent noninvasive tests, invasive coronary angiography, revascularization procedures, cumulative effective radiation dose, major adverse cardiac events, defined as a composite end point of nonfatal myocardial infarction and cardiac death, and medical costs. The mean follow-up for cTCA and stress-CMR groups was similar (773.6±345 versus 752.8±291 days; P=0.21). Compared with stress-CMR, cTCA was associated with a higher rate of subsequent noninvasive tests (28% versus 17%; P=0.0009), invasive coronary angiography (31% versus 20%; P=0.0009), and revascularization procedures (24% versus 16%; P=0.007). Stress-CMR strategy was associated with a significant reduction of radiation exposure and cumulative costs (59% and 24%, respectively; P<0.001). Finally, patients undergoing stress-CMR showed a lower rate of major adverse cardiac events (5% versus 10%; P<0.010) and cost-effectiveness ratio (119.98±250.92 versus 218.12±298.45 Euro/y; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with cTCA, stress-CMR is more cost-effective in symptomatic revascularized patients.

Cost-minimization analysis of three decision strategies for cardiac revascularization: results of the "suspected CAD" cohort of the european cardiovascular magnetic resonance registry.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease (CAD) continues to be one of the top public health burden. Perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is generally accepted to detect CAD, while data on its cost effectiveness are scarce. Therefore, the goal of the study was to compare the costs of a CMR-guided strategy vs two invasive strategies in a large CMR registry. METHODS: In 3'647 patients with suspected CAD of the EuroCMR-registry (59 centers/18 countries) costs were calculated for diagnostic examinations (CMR, X-ray coronary angiography (CXA) with/without FFR), revascularizations, and complications during a 1-year follow-up. Patients with ischemia-positive CMR underwent an invasive CXA and revascularization at the discretion of the treating physician (=CMR + CXA-strategy). In the hypothetical invasive arm, costs were calculated for an initial CXA and a FFR in vessels with ≥50% stenoses (=CXA + FFR-strategy) and the same proportion of revascularizations and complications were applied as in the CMR + CXA-strategy. In the CXA-only strategy, costs included those for CXA and for revascularizations of all ≥50% stenoses. To calculate the proportion of patients with ≥50% stenoses, the stenosis-FFR relationship from the literature was used. Costs of the three strategies were determined based on a third payer perspective in 4 healthcare systems. RESULTS: Revascularizations were performed in 6.2%, 4.5%, and 12.9% of all patients, patients with atypical chest pain (n = 1'786), and typical angina (n = 582), respectively; whereas complications (=all-cause death and non-fatal infarction) occurred in 1.3%, 1.1%, and 1.5%, respectively. The CMR + CXA-strategy reduced costs by 14%, 34%, 27%, and 24% in the German, UK, Swiss, and US context, respectively, when compared to the CXA + FFR-strategy; and by 59%, 52%, 61% and 71%, respectively, versus the CXA-only strategy. In patients with typical angina, cost savings by CMR + CXA vs CXA + FFR were minimal in the German (2.3%), intermediate in the US and Swiss (11.6% and 12.8%, respectively), and remained substantial in the UK (18.9%) systems. Sensitivity analyses proved the robustness of results. CONCLUSIONS: A CMR + CXA-strategy for patients with suspected CAD provides substantial cost reduction compared to a hypothetical CXA + FFR-strategy in patients with low to intermediate disease prevalence. However, in the subgroup of patients with typical angina, cost savings were only minimal to moderate.

Clinical and economic burden associated with cardiovascular events among patients with hyperlipidemia: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Annual direct costs for cardiovascular (CV) diseases in the United States are approximately $195.6 billion, with many high-risk patients remaining at risk for major cardiovascular events (CVE). This study evaluated the direct clinical and economic burden associated with new CVE up to 3 years post-event among patients with hyperlipidemia. METHODS: Hyperlipidemic patients with a primary inpatient claim for new CVE (myocardial infarction, unstable angina, ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, coronary artery bypass graft, percutaneous coronary intervention and heart failure) were identified using IMS LifeLink PharMetrics Plus data from January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2012. Patients were stratified by CV risk into history of CVE, modified coronary heart disease risk equivalent, moderate- and low-risk cohorts. Of the eligible patients, propensity score matched 243,640 patients with or without new CVE were included to compare healthcare resource utilization and direct costs ranging from the acute (1-month) phase through 3 years post-CVE date (follow-up period). RESULTS: Myocardial infarction was the most common CVE in all the risk cohorts. During the acute phase, among patients with new CVE, the average incremental inpatient length of stay and incremental costs ranged from 4.4-6.2 days and $25,666-$30,321, respectively. Acute-phase incremental costs accounted for 61-75% of first-year costs, but incremental costs also remained high during years 2 and 3 post-CVE. CONCLUSIONS: Among hyperlipidemic patients with new CVE, healthcare utilization and costs incurred were significantly higher than for those without CVE during the acute phase, and remained higher up to 3 years post-event, across all risk cohorts.

Comparison of Index Hospitalization Costs Between Robotic CABG and Conventional CABG: Implications for Hybrid Coronary Revascularization.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the direct costs of the index hospitalization and 30-day morbidity and mortality incurred during robotic and conventional coronary artery bypass grafting at a single institution based on hospital clinical and financial records. DESIGN: Retrospective study, propensity-matched groups with one-to-one nearest neighbor matching. SETTING: University hospital, a tertiary care center. PARTICIPANTS: Two thousand eighty-eight consecutive patients who underwent primary coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) from January 2007 to March 2012. INTERVENTIONS: One hundred forty-one matched pairs were created and analyzed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Robotic CABG was associated with a decrease in operative time (5.61±1.1 v 6.6±1.15 hours, p<0.001), a lower need for blood transfusion (12.8% v 22.6%, p = 0.04), a shorter length of stay (6 [4-9]) v 7 [5-11] days, p = 0.001), a shorter ICU stay (31 [24-49] hours v 52 [32-96.5] hours, p<0.001) and lower NY state complications composite rate (4.26% v 13.48%, p = 0.01). In spite of that, the cost of robotic procedures was not significantly different from matched conventional cases ($18,717.35 [11,316.1-34,550.6] versus $18,601 [13,137-50,194.75], p = 0.13), except 26 hybrid coronary revascularizations in which angioplasty was performed on the same admission (hybrid 25,311.1 [18,537.1-41,167.85] versus conventional 18,966.13 [13,337.75-56,021.75], p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Robotically assisted CABG does not increase the cost of the index hospitalization when compared to conventional CABG unless hybrid revascularization is performed on the same admission.