Advertisement

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and the Treatment of Acute Coronary Syndromes

  • Harlan M. Krumholz
Part of the Contemporary Cardiology book series (CONCARD)

Abstract

The emergence of novel mechanical and pharmacologic interventions for the treatment of cardiovascular disease prompts questions about their value. The development of these approaches provides greater opportunity for patients to survive cardiac events. The adoption of these strategies has traditionally depended on their efficacy and safety. However, the rapid development of efficacious therapies and the dissemination of medical innovations also present strong challenges to a health care system that is increasingly constrained by finite resources. Currently, an estimated 7 million Americans suffer from coronary heart disease and incur $88 billion in health care expenditures yearly (1). As the availability of new interventions exceeds our ability to afford them, how should we select which interventions to use as standard practice? Which interventions should be available in the office or at the hospital? How should the resources of the managed care organization be allocated? Are the health benefits worth the health care resources that are consumed?

Keywords

Acute Coronary Syndrome Acute Myocardial Infarction Thrombolytic Therapy Thrombolytic Agent Reperfusion Therapy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kuntz KM, Lee TH. Cost-effectiveness of accepted measures for intervention in coronary heart disease. Coron Artery Dis 1995; 6: 472–478.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Finkler SA. The distinction between cost and charges. Ann Intern Med 1982; 96: 102–109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PX. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for clinical and economic evaluations. Can Med Assoc J 1992; 146: 473–481.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goldman L, Sia ST, Cook EF, Rutherford JD, Weinstein MC. Costs and effectiveness of routine therapy with long-term beta-adrenergic antagonists after acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1988; 319: 152–157.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Krumholz HM, Pasternak RC, Weinstein MC, Friesinger GC, Ridker PM, Tosteson AN, et al. Cost effectiveness of thrombolytic therapy with streptokinase in elderly patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1992; 327: 7–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mark DB, Hlatky MA, Califf RM, Naylor CD, Lee KL, Armstrong PW, et al. Cost effectiveness of thrombolytic therapy with tissue plasminogen activator as compared with streptokinase for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1995; 332: 1418–1424.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krumholz HM, Cohen BJ, Tsevat J, Pasternak RC, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness of a smoking cessation program after myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993; 22: 1697–1702.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johannesson M, Jonsson B, Kjekshus J, Olsson AG, Pedersen TR, Wedel H. Cost-effectiveness of simvastatin treatment to lower cholesterol levels in patients with coronary heart disease. The Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 332–336.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gruppo Italiano per to Studio della Sopravvivenzo nell’Infarto Miocardico (GISSI). Effectiveness of intravenous thrombolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 1986; I: 397–402.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fibrinolytic Therapy Trialists’ (FTT) Collaborative Group. Indications for fibrinolytic therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction: collaborative overview of early mortality and major morbidity results from all randomised trials of more than 1000 patients. Lancet 1994; 343: 311–322.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ISIS-2 (Second International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group. Randomised trial of intravenous streptokinase, oral aspirin, both, or neither among 17,187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-2. Lancet 1988; II: 349–360.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Naylor CD, Bronskill S, Goel V. Cost-effectiveness of intravenous thrombolytic drugs for acute myocardial infarction. Can J Cardiol 1993; 9: 553–558.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Herve C, Castiel D, Gaillard M, Boisvert R, Leroux V. Cost-benefit analysis of thrombolytic therapy. Eur Heart J 1990; 11: 1006–1010.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Simoons ML, Vos J, Martens LL. Cost-utility analysis of thrombolytic therapy. Eur Heart J 1991; 12: 694–699.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    The International Study Group. In-hospital mortality and clinical course of 20,891 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction randomised between alteplase and streptokinase with or without heparin. Lancet 1990; 336: 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Third International Study of Infarct Survival (ISIS-3) Group. ISIS-3: a randomised comparison of streptokinase vs tissue plasminogen activator vs antistreplase and of aspirin plus heparin vs aspirin alone among the 41,299 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 1992; 339: 753–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    The GUSTO Investigators. An international randomized trial comparing four thrombolytic strategies for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 673–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kalish SC, Gurwitz JH, Krumholz HM, Avorn J. A cost-effectiveness model of thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. J Gen Intern Med 1995; 10: 321–330.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grines CL. Should thrombolysis or primary angioplasty be the treatment of choice for acute myocardial infarction? Primary angioplasty-the strategy of choice. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 1313–1316.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lange RA, Hillis LD. Should thrombolysis or primary angioplasty be the treatment of choice for acute myocardial infarction? Thrombolysis-the preferred treatment. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 1316–1317.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goldman L. Cost-effectiveness perspectives in coronary heart disease. Am Heart J 1990; 119: 733–740.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grines CL, Browne KF, Marco J, Rothbaum D, Stone GW, O’ Keefe J, et al. A comparison of immediate angioplasty with thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. The Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction Study Group. N Engl J Med 1993; 328: 673–679.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gibbons RJ, Holmes DR, Reeder GS, Bailey KR, Hopfenspirger MR, Gersh BJ Immediate angioplasty compared with the administration of a thrombolytic agent followed by conservative treatment for myocardial infarction. The Mayo Coronary Care Unit and Catherization Laboratory Groups. N Engl J Med 1993; 328: 685–691.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zijlstra F, de Boer MJ, Hoorntje JC, Reiffers S, Reiber JH, Suryapranata H. A comparison of immediate coronary angioplasty with intravenous streptokinase in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1993; 328: 680–684.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reeder GS, Bailey KR, Gersh BJ, Holmes DR Jr, Christianson J, Gibbons RJ. Cost comparison of immediate angioplasty versus thrombolysis followed by conservative therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a randomized prospective trial. Mayo Coronary Care Unit and Catheterization Laboratory Groups. Mayo Clin Proc 1994; 69: 5–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    The Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries in Acute Coronary Syndromes (GUSTO IIb) Angioplasty Substudy Investigators. A clinical trial comparing primary coronary angioplasty with tissue plasminogen activator for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 1621–1628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Every NR, Parsons LS, Hlatky M, Martin JS, Weaver WD. A comparison of thrombolytic therapy with primary coronary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. Myocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention Investigators. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 1253–1260.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Antoniuccci D, Santoro GM, Bolognese L, Valenti R, Taddeucci E, Trapani M, et al. Elective stenting in acute myocardial infarction: preliminary results of the Florence Randomized Elective Stenting in Acute Coronary Occlusions (FRESCO) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997; 29: 456A.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rodriguez A, Fernandez M, Bernardi V, Mauvecin C, Santaera O, Martinez J, et al. Coronary stents improve hospital results during coronary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction: preliminary results of the randomized controlled study (GRAMI trial). J Am Coll Cardiol 1997; 29: 221A.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Collins R, Peto R, Baigent C, Sleight P. Aspirin, heparin, and fibrinolytic therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 847–860.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Oler A, Whooley MA, Oler J, Grady D. Adding heparin to aspirin reduces the incidence of myocardial infarction and death in patients with unstable angina. JAMA 1996; 276: 811–815.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cohen M, Demers C, Gurfinkel EP, Turpie AG, Fromell GJ, Goodman S, et al. A comparison of lowmolecular-weight heparin with unfractionated heparin for unstable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 447–452.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Topol EJ, Ferguson JJ, Weisman HF, Tscheng JE, Ellis SG, Kleiman NS, et al. Long-term protection from myocardial ischemic events in a randomized trial of brief integrin beta-3 blockage with percutaneous coronary intervention. JAMA 1997; 278: 479–484.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mark DB, Talley JD, Topol EJ, Bowman L, Lam LC, Anderson KM, et al. Economic assessment of platelet glycoprotein llb/IIIa inhibition for prevention of ischemic complications of high-risk coronary angioplasty. The EPIC Investigators. Circulation 1996; 94: 629–635.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    The Randomized Efficacy Study of Tirofiban for Outcomes and Restenosis (RESTORE) Investigators. Effects of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade with tirofiban on adverse cardiac events in patients with unstable angina or acute myocardial infarction undergoing coronary angioplasty. Circulation 1997; 96: 1445–1453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    The IMPACT-AMI Investigators. Combined accelerated tissue-plasminogen activator and platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa integrin receptor blockade with integrilin in acute myocardial infarction: results of a randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial. Circulation 1997; 95: 846–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yusuf S, Peto R, Lewis J, Collins R, Sleight P. Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomized trials. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 1985; 27: 335–371.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fourth International Study of Infarct Survival (ISIS-4) Collaborative Group. ISIS-4: a randomised factorial trial assessing early oral captopril, oral mononitrate, and intravenous magnesium sulphate in 58,050 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 1995; 345: 669–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harlan M. Krumholz

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations