Is the Use of BIMA in CABG Sub-Optimal? A Review of the Current Clinical and Economic Evidence Including Innovative Approaches to the Management of Mediastinitis.

Bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has traditionally been limited. This review looks at the recent outcome data on BIMA in CABG focusing on the management of risk factors for mediastinitis, one of the potential barriers for more extensive BIMA utilization. A combination of pre-, intra- and postoperative strategies are essential to reduce mediastinitis. Limited data indicate that the incidence of mediastinitis can be reduced using closed incision negative-pressure wound therapy as a part of these strategies with the possibility of offering patients best treatment options by extending BIMA to those with a higher risk of mediastinitis. Recent economic data imply that the technology may challenge the current low uptake of BIMA by reducing the short-term cost differentials between single internal mammary artery and BIMA. Given that most published randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses of observational long-term outcome data favor BIMA, if short-term complications of BIMA including mediastinitis can be controlled adequately, there may be opportunities for more extensive use of BIMA leading to improved long-term outcomes. An ongoing study looking at BIMA in high-risk patients may provide evidence to support the hypothesis that mediastinitis should not be a factor in limiting the use of BIMA in CABG.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of solifenacin versus oxybutynin immediate-release in the treatment of patients with overactive bladder in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: To carry out a cost-utility analysis comparing initial treatment with solifenacin 5 mg/day vs oxybutynin immediate-release (IR) 15 mg/day for the treatment of patients with overactive bladder (OAB) from the perspective of the U.K. National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: A Markov model with six health states was developed to follow a cohort of OAB patients treated with either solifenacin or oxybutynin during a 1-year period. Costs and utilities were accumulated as patients transited through the health states in the model and a drop-out state. Some of the solifenacin patients were titrated from 5 mg to 10 mg/day at 8 weeks. A proportion of drop-out patients were assumed to continue treatment with tolterodine ER. Utility values were obtained from a Swedish study and pad use was based on a multinational clinical trial. Adherence rates for individual treatments were derived from a U.K. database study. For pad use and utility values, the drop-out state was split between those patients who were no longer receiving treatment and those on second-line therapy. Patients on second-line therapy who drop-out were referred for a specialist visit. Results were expressed in terms of incremental cost-utility ratios. RESULTS: Total annual costs for solifenacin and oxybutynin were £504.30 and £364.19, respectively. First-line drug use represents 49% and 4% of costs and pad use represent 23% and 40% of costs for solifenacin and oxybutynin, respectively. Differences between cumulative utilities were small but were greater for solifenacin (0.7020 vs. 0.6907). The baseline incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £12,309/QALY. CONCLUSION: Under the baseline assumptions, solifenacin would appear to be cost-effective with an incremental cost-utility of less than £20,000/QALY. However, small differences in utility between the alternatives and the large number of drop-outs means that the results are sensitive to small adjustments in the values of utilities assigned to the drop-out state.

Cost-effectiveness of the treatment of heart failure with ramipril: a Spanish analysis of the AIRE study.

AIMS: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of adding ramipril to conventional treatment in patients with heart failure after myocardial infarction from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. METHODS AND RESULTS: A retrospective analysis of the AIRE study was made, using previously published data from the clinical trial combined with local Spanish resource and cost data. A typical rehospitalisation for a heart failure episode would last an average of 11.6 days with an average cost of 350.80 per day. The incremental cost of ramipril per life-year gained in the baseline case was 1550.10 after 3.8 years of follow-up. Sensitivity analysis showed that the basic conclusions were robust in spite of extreme variations in the values of the key parameters of the model. CONCLUSION: The use of ramipril in addition to conventional treatment in heart failure patients after myocardial infarction is cost-effective both according to currently accepted international standards of what constitutes a cost-effective intervention and also indirectly by comparing the results with similar pharmaceutical products financed under the Spanish National Health System.