Low dose compared to variable dose Warfarin and to Fondaparinux as prophylaxis for thromboembolism after elective hip or knee replacement surgery; a randomized, prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary emboli (PE), known together as venous thromboembolic (VTE) disease remain major complications following elective hip and knee surgery. This study compares three chemoprophylactic regimens for VTE following elective primary unilateral hip or knee replacement, one of which was designed to minimize risk of post-operative bleeding. METHODS: Patients were randomized and stratified for hip vs. knee to receive A: variable dose warfarin (first dose on the night preceding surgery with subsequent target INR 2.0-2.5), B: 2.5 mg fondaparinux daily starting 6-18 h postoperatively, or C: fixed 1.0 mg dose warfarin daily starting 7 days preoperatively. All treatments continued until bilateral leg venous ultrasound day 28 ± 2 or earlier upon a VTE event. The study examined primary endpoints including leg DVT, PE or death due to VTE and secondary endpoints including effects on D-dimer, estimated blood loss (EBL) at surgery and hemorrhagic complications. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-five patients were randomized. None was lost to follow-up. Taking 1.0 mg warfarin for seven days preoperatively did not prolong the prothrombin time (PT). Two patients in Arm C had asymptomatic distal DVT. One major bleed occurred in Arm B and one in Arm C (ischemic colitis). Elevated d-dimer did not predict delayed VTE for one year. CONCLUSIONS: Fixed low dose warfarin started preoperatively is equivalent to two other standards of care under study (95 % CI: -0.0428, 0.0067 for both) as VTE prophylaxis for the patients having elective major joint replacement surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier # NCT00767559 FDA IND: 103,716.

Economic evaluation of bivalirudin with or without glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition versus heparin with routine glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition for early invasive management of acute coronary syndromes.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the economic impact of several anticoagulation strategies for moderate- and high-risk non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) patients managed invasively. BACKGROUND: The ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) trial demonstrated that bivalirudin monotherapy yields similar rates of ischemic complications and less bleeding than regimens incorporating glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors (GPI) for moderate- and high-risk NSTE-ACS. METHODS: In ACUITY, 7,851 U.S. patients were randomized to: 1) heparin (unfractionated or enoxaparin) + GPI; 2) bivalirudin + GPI; or 3) bivalirudin monotherapy. Patients assigned to GPI were also randomized to upstream GPI before catheterization or selective GPI only with percutaneous coronary intervention. Resource use data were collected prospectively through 30-day follow-up. Costs were estimated with standard methods including resource-based accounting, hospital billing data, and the Medicare fee schedule. RESULTS: At 30 days, ischemic events were similar for all groups. Major bleeding was reduced with bivalirudin monotherapy compared with heparin + GPI or bivalirudin + GPI (p < 0.001). Length of stay was lowest with bivalirudin monotherapy or bivalirudin + catheterization laboratory GPI (p = 0.02). Despite higher drug costs, aggregate hospital stay costs were lowest with bivalirudin monotherapy (mean difference range: $184 to $1,081, p < 0.001 for overall comparison) and at 30 days (mean difference range: $123 to $938, p = 0.005). Regression modeling demonstrated that hospital savings were primarily due to less major and minor bleeding with bivalirudin ($8,658/event and $2,282/event, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among U.S. patients in the ACUITY trial, bivalirudin monotherapy compared with heparin + GPI resulted in similar protection from ischemic events, reduced bleeding, and shorter length of stay. Despite higher drug costs, aggregate hospital and 30-day costs were lowest with bivalirudin monotherapy. Thus bivalirudin monotherapy seems to be an economically attractive alternative to heparin + GPI for patients with moderate- and high-risk NSTE-ACS. (Comparison of Angiomax Versus Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndromes [ACS]; NCT00093158).

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.

Economic evaluation of bivalirudin with provisional glycoprotein IIB/IIIA inhibition versus heparin with routine glycoprotein IIB/IIIA inhibition for percutaneous coronary intervention: results from the REPLACE-2 trial.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the cost of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using bivalirudin with provisional platelet glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibition with that of heparin + routine GP IIb/IIIa inhibition. BACKGROUND: Although GP IIb/IIIa inhibition has been shown to reduce ischemic complications in a broad range of patients undergoing PCI, many patients currently do not receive such therapy because of concerns about bleeding complications or cost. Recently, bivalirudin with provisional GP IIb/IIIa inhibition has been validated as an alternative to heparin + routine GP IIb/IIIa inhibition for patients undergoing PCI. However, the cost-effectiveness of this novel strategy is unknown. METHODS: In the Randomized Evaluation in PCI Linking Angiomax to Reduced Clinical Events (REPLACE)-2 trial, 4,651 U.S. patients undergoing non-emergent PCI were randomized to receive bivalirudin with provisional GP IIb/IIIa (n = 2,319) versus heparin + routine GP IIb/IIIa (n = 2,332). Resource utilization data were collected prospectively through 30-day follow-up on all U.S. patients. Medical care costs were estimated using standard methods including bottom-up accounting (for procedural costs), the Medicare fee schedule (for physician services), hospital billing data (for 2,821 of 4,862 admissions), and regression-based approaches for the remaining hospitalizations. RESULTS: Among the bivalirudin group, 7.7% required provisional GP IIb/IIIa. Thirty-day ischemic outcomes including death or myocardial infarction were similar for the bivalirudin and GP IIb/IIIa groups, but bivalirudin resulted in lower rates of major bleeding (2.8% vs. 4.5%, p = 0.002) and minor bleeding (15.1% vs. 28.1%, p < 0.001). Compared with routine GP IIb/IIIa, in-hospital and 30-day costs were reduced by $405 (95% confidence interval [CI] $37 to $773) and $374 (95% CI $61 to $688) per patient with bivalirudin (p < 0.001 for both). Regression modeling demonstrated that, in addition to the costs of the anticoagulants themselves, hospital savings were due primarily to reductions in major bleeding (cost savings = $107/patient), minor bleeding ($52/patient), and thrombocytopenia ($47/patient). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with heparin + routine GP IIb/IIIa inhibition, bivalirudin + provisional GP IIb/IIIa inhibition resulted in similar acute ischemic events and cost savings of $375 to $400/patient depending on the analytic perspective.

Cost-effectiveness of distal embolic protection for patients undergoing percutaneous intervention of saphenous vein bypass grafts: results from the SAFER trial.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this research was to determine the incremental cost and cost-effectiveness of embolic protection in patients undergoing percutaneous revascularization (PCI) of diseased saphenous vein bypass grafts (SVGs). BACKGROUND: Distal protection using the GuardWire balloon occlusion device has been shown to reduce major ischemic complications in patients undergoing SVG PCI, but the cost-effectiveness of this approach is unknown. METHODS: We prospectively measured medical resource utilization and cost for 801 patients undergoing SVG intervention who were randomized to distal protection using the GuardWire (n = 406) or conventional treatment (n = 395) in the Saphenous Vein Graft Angioplasty Free of Emboli Randomized (SAFER) trial. Long-term survival and cost-effectiveness were projected based on observed 30-day outcomes and a validated survival model for postcoronary artery bypass graft patients. RESULTS: Compared with conventional treatment, distal protection increased initial procedural costs by approximately $1,600 ($6,326 vs. $4,779, p < 0.001). However, by reducing ischemic complications, distal protection reduced mean length of stay by 0.4 days and other hospital costs by nearly $1,000 ($6,846 vs. $7,811, p = 0.018). As a result, overall initial hospital costs were only $582 per patient higher with distal protection. Based on the observed 30-day cost and outcome differences in the trial, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for distal protection was $3,718 per year of life saved and remained <$40,000 per year of life saved in 97.3% of bootstrap simulations (95% confidence interval, $0 to $43,079). CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing PCI of diseased SVGs, distal protection using the GuardWire system is an attractive use of limited health care resources.

In-hospital costs of self-expanding nitinol stent implantation versus balloon angioplasty in the femoropopliteal artery (the VascuCoil Trial).

PURPOSE: Although several prospective studies have examined the safety and efficacy of stent placement for femoropopliteal arterial disease, the current cost of these procedures is unknown. To estimate and compare hospital costs associated with conventional balloon angioplasty (percutaneous transluminal angioplasty [PTA]) and stent placement for patients with symptomatic peripheral arterial disease, the authors performed a prospective economic evaluation in conjunction with the Intracoil Femoropopliteal Stent Trial (VascuCoil). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between May 1997 and December 1999, 266 patients with stenotic or occluded superficial femoral or popliteal arteries were prospectively randomized to treatment with the IntraCoil stent or PTA. Detailed resource use and cost data for each patient's initial revascularization procedure and ensuing hospitalization were collected and analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: Compared with conventional balloon angioplasty, stent placement did not improve clinical outcomes but increased procedure duration, equipment costs, and physician services. As a result, initial hospital costs were approximately 3,500 dollars higher for patients randomized to the IntraCoil stent, compared with PTA (8,435 dollars vs 4,980 dollars; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: As performed in the VascuCoil trial, primary stent placement for femoropopliteal disease did not improve clinical outcomes but increased initial treatment costs by more than 3,000 dollars. Because there were no substantial differences in subsequent clinical outcomes between the two treatments, it is unlikely that these increased initial costs would be offset by savings in follow-up costs. These findings suggest that a strategy of routine stent implantation for patients undergoing femoropopliteal PTA is not optimal on economic grounds and that PTA with provisional stent implantation is preferred.

Cost-effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stents for treatment of complex coronary stenoses: results from the Sirolimus-Eluting Balloon Expandable Stent in the Treatment of Patients With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions (SIRIUS) trial.

BACKGROUND: Recently, sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) have been shown to dramatically reduce the risk of angiographic and clinical restenosis compared with bare metal stent (BMS) implantation. However, the overall cost-effectiveness of this strategy is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between February and August 2001, 1058 patients with complex coronary stenoses were enrolled in the SIRIUS trial and randomized to percutaneous coronary revascularization with either a SES or BMS. Clinical outcomes, resource use, and costs were assessed prospectively for all patients over a 1-year follow-up period. Initial hospital costs were increased by 2881 dollars per patient with SESs. Over the 1-year follow-up period, use of SESs led to substantial reductions in the need for repeat revascularization, including repeat percutaneous coronary intervention and bypass surgery. Although follow-up costs were reduced by 2571 dollars per patient with SESs, aggregate 1-year costs remained 309 dollars per patient higher. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for SES was 1650 dollars per repeat revascularization event avoided or 27,540 dollars per quality-adjusted year of life gained, values that compare reasonably with other accepted medical interventions. Under updated treatment assumptions regarding available stent lengths and duration of antiplatelet therapy, use of SESs was projected to reduce total 1-year costs compared with BMSs. CONCLUSIONS: Although use of SESs was not cost-saving compared with BMS implantation, for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention of complex coronary stenoses, their use appears to be reasonably cost-effective within the context of the US healthcare system.

Cost-effectiveness of coronary stenting and abciximab for patients with acute myocardial infarction: results from the CADILLAC (Controlled Abciximab and Device Investigation to Lower Late Angioplasty Complications) trial.

BACKGROUND: Both stenting and the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor abciximab improve outcomes for patients undergoing primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, the cost-effectiveness of these strategies is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a prospective cost-utility analysis among US participants in the CADILLAC trial. Patients with AMI (n=1703) were randomized to stenting versus balloon angioplasty (PTCA) and abciximab versus no abciximab according to a 2-by-2 factorial design. Total 1-year costs and lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, measured as cost per quality-adjusted year of life (QALY) gained, were calculated. Compared with PTCA, stenting increased procedural costs by 1148 dollars and initial hospital costs by 1384 dollars (both P<0.001). By 1-year, stenting led to fewer repeat revascularization procedures and reduced follow-up medical care costs by 1215 dollars, such that aggregate costs were similar for the PTCA and stent groups (18 690 dollars versus 18 859 dollars, P=0.75). The cost-effectiveness ratio for stenting versus PTCA was favorable at 11 237 dollars/QALY gained and remained <20 000 dollars/QALY in sensitivity analyses. Compared with standard anticoagulation, abciximab increased initial procedural costs by 1122 dollars (P<0.001). By facilitating accelerated hospital discharge, abciximab reduced length of stay by approximately 0.6 days, offsetting most of the drug costs. These cost offsets were not maintained, however; aggregate 1-year costs for the abciximab group were 1244 dollars greater than for standard therapy (19 389 dollars versus 18 145 dollars , P=0.02). Abciximab was reasonably cost-effective (cost-effectiveness ratio 21 305 dollars/QALY) only if nonsignificant differences in 1-year mortality (3.7% versus 4.3%, P=0.62) were incorporated in the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Primary stenting is a highly cost-effective treatment for AMI. The cost-effectiveness of abciximab in this setting is uncertain and depends primarily on whether long-term survival is enhanced.

Cost-effectiveness of gamma radiation for treatment of in-stent restenosis: results from the Gamma-1 trial.

BACKGROUND: Recently, several randomized trials have demonstrated that intracoronary brachytherapy can reduce the rates of both angiographic and clinical restenosis in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for in-stent restenosis. Whether this practice is cost-effective is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between December 1997 and July 1998, 252 patients with in-stent restenosis were randomized to receive brachytherapy or placebo after successful PCI as part of the Gamma-1 trial. We collected detailed resource utilization and cost data for each patient's initial hospitalization and for 1 year after randomization. Compared with conventional treatment, intracoronary brachytherapy increased procedure duration, physician services, and equipment costs. As a result, initial costs were increased by nearly $4100 per patient ($15 724 versus $11 675, P<0.001). Over the 1-year follow-up period, brachytherapy reduced the need for repeat revascularization by 21% and reduced the need for bypass surgery by 44%. Although follow-up medical care costs were $2200/patient lower with brachytherapy, total costs remained higher at 1 year ($28 543 versus $26 737, P=0.46). In a sensitivity analysis that incorporated recent technical modifications and the use of prolonged antiplatelet therapy to prevent late thrombotic occlusion, follow-up cost savings increased to $3600/patient, and 1-year costs were slightly lower with brachytherapy ($26 352 versus $26 729, P=0.87). Subgroup analysis demonstrated significant cost savings in patients with diabetes and patients who did not undergo repeat stenting. CONCLUSIONS: As performed in the Gamma-1 trial, coronary brachytherapy for in-stent restenosis improved clinical outcomes but increased 1-year costs compared with standard therapy. If late thrombosis can be eliminated, however, this technology has the potential to reduce overall medical care costs.