STUDY OBJECTIVE: This study reports a comparison of the time to treatment and cost of administration of alteplase (tPA) and reteplase (rPA) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI). DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Hospital emergency department. INTERVENTIONS: A retrospective chart review of 500 MI patients who received alteplase or reteplase was performed. A comparison of time from presentation in the emergency department to start of treatment was performed, and the cost of administration of drugs, including cost of supplies, monitoring time, and IV line complications, was calculated for each drug. RESULTS: The time from presentation to start of treatment was significantly shorter for reteplase than alteplase (51 vs 34 min). This difference resulted from a shorter decision to treat to start of treatment time for reteplase (11 min) compared to alteplase (31 min). The cost of administration of alteplase ranged from $136 to $184 per patient, while the cost of administration of reteplase ranged from $87 to $120 per patient. DISCUSSION: Given the similar safety and efficacy profiles of these thrombolytic agents, the advantages of reteplase in speed of administration and the reduction in cost should be considered when making formulary and drug product selection decisions.). Abbreviated Abstract. Alteplase (tPA) and reteplase (rPA) were compared in a retrospective review of 500 patients. rPA was associated with 17 minute time savings from presentation-to-treatment compared to tPA. rPA was also associated with a per patient cost savings $49 to $64 compared to tPA. The time and cost advantages of rPA should be considered when making drug product selection decisions.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: This study reports a comparison of the time to treatment and cost of administration of alteplase (tPA) and reteplase (rPA) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI). DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Hospital emergency department. INTERVENTIONS: A retrospective chart review of 500 MI patients who received alteplase or reteplase was performed. A comparison of time from presentation in the emergency department to start of treatment was performed, and the cost of administration of drugs, including cost of supplies, monitoring time, and IV line complications, was calculated for each drug. RESULTS: The time from presentation to start of treatment was significantly shorter for reteplase than alteplase (51 vs 34 min). This difference resulted from a shorter decision to treat to start of treatment time for reteplase (11 min) compared to alteplase (31 min). The cost of administration of alteplase ranged from $136 to $184 per patient, while the cost of administration of reteplase ranged from $87 to $120 per patient. DISCUSSION: Given the similar safety and efficacy profiles of these thrombolytic agents, the advantages of reteplase in speed of administration and the reduction in cost should be considered when making formulary and drug product selection decisions.). Abbreviated Abstract. Alteplase (tPA) and reteplase (rPA) were compared in a retrospective review of 500 patients. rPA was associated with 17 minute time savings from presentation-to-treatment compared to tPA. rPA was also associated with a per patient cost savings $49 to $64 compared to tPA. The time and cost advantages of rPA should be considered when making drug product selection decisions.
Authors: T J Ryan; J L Anderson; E M Antman; B A Braniff; N H Brooks; R M Califf; L D Hillis; L F Hiratzka; E Rapaport; B J Riegel; R O Russell; E E Smith; W D Weaver Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1996-11-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: L K Newby; W R Rutsch; R M Califf; M L Simoons; P E Aylward; P W Armstrong; L H Woodlief; K L Lee; E J Topol; F Van de Werf Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1996-06 Impact factor: 24.094