Literature DB >> 15519010

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

David J Cohen1, Sabina A Murphy, Donald S Baim, Tara A Lavelle, Ronna H Berezin, Donald E Cutlip, Kalon K L Ho, Richard E Kuntz.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15519010     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.05.086

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  7 in total

1.  Interpreting the results of cost-effectiveness studies.

Authors:  David J Cohen; Matthew R Reynolds
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2008-12-16       Impact factor: 24.094

2.  Medical technology as a key driver of rising health expenditure: disentangling the relationship.

Authors:  Corinna Sorenson; Michael Drummond; Beena Bhuiyan Khan
Journal:  Clinicoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2013-05-30

Review 3.  The MGuard coronary stent: safety, efficacy, and clinical utility.

Authors:  Montserrat Gracida; Rafael Romaguera; Francisco Jacobi; Joan A Gómez-Hospital; Angel Cequier
Journal:  Vasc Health Risk Manag       Date:  2015-09-18

4.  Early and midterm major adverse cardiac events in patient with saphenous vein graft using direct stenting or embolic protection device stenting.

Authors:  Mohammadali Sadr-Ameli; Hossein Mousavi; Mona Heidarali; Mohsen Maadani; Yones Ghelich; Behshid Ghadrdoost
Journal:  Res Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2014-02-24

5.  Percutaneous revascularization of patients with history of coronary bypass graft: reply.

Authors:  Fatemeh Behboudi
Journal:  J Tehran Heart Cent       Date:  2011-05-31

6.  Long term outcomes of saphaneous vein graft intervention in elderly patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft.

Authors:  Ji-Hong Wang; Wei Liu; Xin Du; Chang-Sheng Ma; Xue-Si Wu
Journal:  J Geriatr Cardiol       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 3.327

7.  Factors associated with the no-reflow phenomenon following percutaneous intervention of saphenous vein coronary bypass grafts.

Authors:  Mohammad Hashemi-Jazi; Sayed Mojtaba Hosseini; Ali Gholamrezaei
Journal:  ARYA Atheroscler       Date:  2017-09
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.