RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with improved clinical outcomes over angiography alone. Despite this, the adoption of IVUS in clinical practice remains low. AIMS: To examine the cost-effectiveness of IVUS-guided PCI compared to angiography alone in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). METHODS: A one-year decision tree and lifetime Markov model were constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of IVUS-guided PCI to angiography alone for two hypothetical adult populations consisting of 1,000 individuals: ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and unstable angina/ non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI) patients undergoing drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation. The UK healthcare system perspective was applied using 2019/20 costs. All-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat PCI, lifetime costs, life expectancy and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were assessed. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, IVUS-guided PCI was cost-effective compared to angiography alone in both populations, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £3,649 and £5,706 per-patient in STEMI and UA/NSTEMI patients, respectively. In the one-year time horizon, the model suggested that IVUS was associated with reductions in mortality, MI and repeat PCI by 51%, 33% and 52% in STEMI and by 50%, 29% and 57% in UA/NSTEMI patients, respectively. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated the robustness of the model with IVUS being 100% cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £20,000 per QALY-gained. CONCLUSIONS: From a UK healthcare perspective, an IVUS-guided PCI strategy was highly cost-effective over angiography alone amongst ACS patients undergoing DES implantation due to the medium- and long-term reduction in repeat PCI, death, and MI.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Multichamber bags (MCBs) may offer potential clinical, ergonomic, and economic advantages compared with (hospital) pharmacy compounded bags (COBs) and multibottle systems (MBSs). METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed to identify and assess the available evidence regarding advantages of MCBs compared with COBs and MBSs. Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Databases, and EconLit were searched for articles reporting clinical, ergonomic, and economic outcomes for MCBs compared with COBs or MBSs. The search was limited to studies conducted in hospitalized patients >2 years of age that were published in English between January 1990 and November 2014. The Population Intervention Comparison Outcomes Study Design (PICOS) framework was used for the analysis. RESULTS: From 1307 unique citations, 74 potentially relevant publications were identified; review of references identified 2 additional publications. Among the 76 publications, 18 published studies met the inclusion criteria. Most were retrospective in design. Ten studies reported clinical outcomes, including 1 prospective randomized trial and multiple retrospective analyses that reported a lower risk of bloodstream infection for MCBs compared with other delivery systems. Sixteen studies reported ergonomic and/or economic outcomes; most reported a potential cost benefit for MCBs, with consistent reports of reduced time and labor compared with other systems. The largest cost benefit was observed in studies evaluating total hospitalization costs. CONCLUSIONS: The systematic literature review identified evidence of potential clinical, ergonomic, and economic benefits for MCBs compared with COBs and MBSs; however, methodological factors limited evidence quality. More prospective studies are required to corroborate existing evidence.