Impact of time to treatment on myocardial reperfusion and infarct size with primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction (from the EMERALD Trial).

The impact of time to treatment on outcomes after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is controversial, and there are few data about time to treatment and infarct size. The EMERALD trial randomly assigned 501 high-risk patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary PCI to stenting with or without GuardWire (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, California) distal protection. Infarct size using sestamibi imaging at 5 to 14 days and clinical outcomes were examined by time to treatment. There were no differences in outcomes between distal protection and control patients. Shorter time to reperfusion (<2 vs 2 to 3 vs >3 to 4 vs >4 hours) was associated with smaller infarct size (2% vs 9% vs 12% vs 11%, p=0.026), trends for better myocardial blush (p=0.08), and lower 6-month mortality rates (0% vs 0% vs 2.4% vs 5.3%, p=0.06). Incremental delays in reperfusion after 2 hours had little impact on infarct size. Shorter time to reperfusion impacted on infarct size in patients with anterior infarction (0% vs 17% vs 20.5% vs 30.5%, p=0.026), but not nonanterior infarction (3% vs 7% vs 7.5% vs 10%, p=0.23, p=0.022 for interaction). In conclusion, very early reperfusion with primary PCI is associated with smaller infarct size and has a much greater impact in anterior versus nonanterior infarction. Incremental delays in reperfusion after 2 hours have less effect on infarct size. These data have implications regarding the triage of patients for primary PCI.

Cost effectiveness of paclitaxel-eluting stents for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization: results from the TAXUS-IV Trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare aggregate medical care costs for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) and to formally evaluate the incremental cost effectiveness of PES for patients undergoing single-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND: Although the cost effectiveness of SES has been studied in both clinical trials and decision-analytic models, few data exist on the cost effectiveness of alternative drug-eluting stent (DES) designs. In addition, no clinical trials have specifically examined the cost effectiveness of DES among patients managed without mandatory angiographic follow-up. METHODS: We performed a prospective economic evaluation among 1,314 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization randomized to either PES (N = 662) or BMS (N = 652) in the TAXUS-IV trial. Clinical outcomes, resource use, and costs (from a societal perspective) were assessed prospectively for all patients over a 1-year follow-up period. Cost effectiveness was defined as the incremental cost per target vessel revascularization (TVR) event avoided and was analyzed separately among cohorts assigned to mandatory angiographic follow-up (n = 732) or clinical follow-up alone (n = 582). RESULTS: The PES reduced TVR by 12.2 events per 100 patients treated, resulting in a 1-year cost difference of 572 dollars per patient with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 4,678 dollars per TVR avoided and 47,798 dollars/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Among patients assigned to clinical follow-up alone, the net 1-year cost difference was 97 dollars per patient with cost-effectiveness ratios of 760 dollars per TVR event avoided and $5,105/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: In the TAXUS-IV trial, treatment with PES led to substantial reductions in the need for repeat revascularization while increasing 1-year costs only modestly. The cost-effectiveness ratio for PES in the study population compares reasonably with that for other treatments that reduce coronary restenosis, including alternative drug-eluting stent platforms.