The impact of carperitide usage on the cost of hospitalization and outcome in patients with acute heart failure: High value care vs. low value care campaign in Japan.

BACKGROUND: The usefulness of carperitide in patients with acute heart failure (AHF) has not been confirmed; carperitide is expensive, and thus, its routine use has not been shown to add much value in clinical settings. We analyzed the impact of carperitide usage on the outcome and cost of hospitalization in AHF patients. METHODS: Data obtained from the Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC) database from July 2014 until June 2015 from 371 hospitals were analyzed. Emergent patients with acute heart failure (ICD code I50* and DPC code 050130) who did not undergo any surgical procedures were enrolled. We compared the outcomes and cost between the carperitide group and non-carperitide group using propensity score matched analysis. RESULTS: In 37,891 heart failure patients (52.2% male; 79.2±11.9years), 13,421 pairs were selected according to the propensity score matching. In-hospital death occurred more frequently in the carperitide group (n=997; 7.4%) than in the non-carperitide group (n=844; 6.3%; p<0.01). Carperitide use was also related with higher costs of hospitalizations, and total dose of carperitide administered during hospitalization decreased with the increasing case volume (p<0.01). On the other hand, carperitide usage was frequently recognized in hospitals with larger annual case volumes (32.1%, Q1; 37.3%, Q2; 40.7%, Q3, p-value<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Carperitide usage negatively affected patient outcomes and cost of hospitalization. In hospitals with lower annual case volume, clinicians should pay attention to the total dose and duration of carperitide. On the other hand, in hospitals with larger annual case volumes, clinicians should pay attention to the thresholds/indications to prescribe carperitide in AHF patients.

Comparison of salt with low-dose furosemide and carperitide for treating acute decompensated heart failure: a single-center retrospective cohort study.

Hypertonic saline with furosemide has been proposed for a long time as an effective therapeutic option for the treatment of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). We previously reported the efficacy of continuous infusion of 1.7 % hypertonic saline plus low-dose furosemide in treatment for ADHF. Although this therapeutic strategy can be a useful option for effective decongestion in treatment for ADHF, there is no study that assesses the effect and safety of saline supplementation compared with standard therapy in Japan. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of 1.7 % hypertonic saline plus low-dose furosemide infusion compared with carperitide. We compared clinical outcomes, adverse events, and cost for patients receiving carperitide (carperitide group) with those for patients receiving 1.7 % hypertonic saline plus low-dose furosemide (salt group) during the initial hospitalization for ADHF. The cost analysis was performed on the basis of the previous report about cost-effectiveness of acute heart failure. A total of 175 ADHF patients received either carperitide (n = 111) or 1.7 % hypertonic saline plus low-dose furosemide infusion (n = 64) as initial treatment. There were no differences in length of hospital stay (27 ± 19 vs. 25 ± 16 day, p = 0.170) and infusion period (7.2 ± 6.1 vs. 8.4 ± 7.5 day, p = 0.474) between the two groups. The incidence of rehospitalization did not differ at 1 month (7.6 vs. 6.6 %, p = 1.000) and 1 year (36.8 vs. 37.7 %, p = 0.907) between the two groups. The Kaplan-Meier curves revealed no significant difference for 1 year all-cause mortality between the two groups (log-rank, p = 0.724). The single hospitalization cost was 95,314 yen lower and the yearly hospitalization cost 125,628 yen lower in the salt group compared with the carperitide group. Thus, intravenous 1.7 % hypertonic saline plus low-dose furosemide infusion is as effective as carperitide in terms of clinical outcome and is a cost-effective therapeutic strategy for the treatment of ADHF.

New CHF drug shown to ease breathing distress among hospitalized patients.

Natrecor (nesiritide) is targeted to acute decompensating CHF patients.

Effect of nesiritide versus dobutamine on short-term outcomes in the treatment of patients with acutely decompensated heart failure.

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to determine whether nesiritide, administered for acute decompensated congestive heart failure (CHF), affects healthcare costs by hospital length of stay (LOS), readmissions and short-term mortality, compared to dobutamine. BACKGROUND: Dobutamine is a commonly used inotropic treatment for CHF. Although dobutamine may have favorable hemodynamic and symptomatic effects, its use may be associated with side effects such as tachycardia, cardiac arrhythmias and myocardial ischemia. Nesiritide (B-type natriuretic peptide) is a new intravenous (IV) drug that produces hemodynamic and symptomatic improvement through balanced vasodilatory effects, neurohormonal suppression and enhanced natriuresis and diuresis. METHODS: From an open-label randomized study of nesiritide versus standard care (SC) in patients with CHF requiring hospitalization, we compared short-term outcome data from patients given nesiritide (0.015 or 0.03 microg/kg per min) with a subgroup of SC patients given dobutamine. A total of 261 patients are included in this analysis. RESULTS: Compared to dobutamine, both nesiritide doses were administered for a shorter total duration (p < 0.001), and the total duration of all IV vasoactive therapy (including study drug) was also shorter (p less-than-or-equal 0.012). Although there was no difference in LOS, there was a trend toward decreased readmissions in the two nesiritide groups (8% and 11%, respectively, vs. 20% in the dobutamine group). Six-month mortality was lower in the nesiritide groups. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of decompensated CHF with nesiritide may lead to lower healthcare costs and reduced mortality compared to treatment with dobutamine.