OBJECTIVES: This ancillary study of the Comparison of Angioplasty and Pre-hospital Thrombolysis in Acute Myocardial Infarction (CAPTIM) trial sought to assess the cost-efficacy ratio of primary coronary angioplasty (PCA) and pre-hospital thrombolysis (PHT) in patients suffering from an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (<6 h) close to (<60 min journey) a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) center. BACKGROUND: In the CAPTIM study, at 30 days follow-up PCA was as equally effective as PHT with rescue angioplasty if needed. The cost efficacy of these two strategies has not yet been compared. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected for 299 patients in three centers. The efficacy analysis was extended at one-year follow-up for those patients. Direct fixed and variable actual costs were assessed with a piggyback data collection. RESULTS: The one-year primary end point event-rate (death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and stroke) was not different after PCA or PHT (14% vs. 16. 4%, p = NS). Costs were lower in the PCA group either during the in-hospital period (8,287 vs. 9,170 $, p = 0.0001) and after one-year follow-up, in relation to a higher rate of subsequent revascularizations in the PHT group (49% vs. 23%, p < 0. 01), leading to a longer hospital stay (10 vs. 9.1 days, p = 0. 03). CONCLUSIONS: After AMI in patients less than 1 h from a PCI center, PCA is as effective and less costly than a combined strategy of PHT followed by rescue angioplasty.
OBJECTIVES: This ancillary study of the Comparison of Angioplasty and Pre-hospital Thrombolysis in Acute Myocardial Infarction (CAPTIM) trial sought to assess the cost-efficacy ratio of primary coronary angioplasty (PCA) and pre-hospital thrombolysis (PHT) in patients suffering from an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (<6 h) close to (<60 min journey) a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) center. BACKGROUND: In the CAPTIM study, at 30 days follow-up PCA was as equally effective as PHT with rescue angioplasty if needed. The cost efficacy of these two strategies has not yet been compared. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected for 299 patients in three centers. The efficacy analysis was extended at one-year follow-up for those patients. Direct fixed and variable actual costs were assessed with a piggyback data collection. RESULTS: The one-year primary end point event-rate (death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and stroke) was not different after PCA or PHT (14% vs. 16. 4%, p = NS). Costs were lower in the PCA group either during the in-hospital period (8,287 vs. 9,170 $, p = 0.0001) and after one-year follow-up, in relation to a higher rate of subsequent revascularizations in the PHT group (49% vs. 23%, p < 0. 01), leading to a longer hospital stay (10 vs. 9.1 days, p = 0. 03). CONCLUSIONS: After AMI in patients less than 1 h from a PCI center, PCA is as effective and less costly than a combined strategy of PHT followed by rescue angioplasty.
Authors: Rahim Gul; Maksymilian P Opolski; Mufti Akif; Mehboob Ali Dar; Yasir Beshir; Haitham Sakr; Hassan Khalaf; Akram Eldesoky; Osama A Smettei; Tariq I Soomro; Mohammed Saied; Asim Ganawa; Rami M Abazid Journal: J Saudi Heart Assoc Date: 2020-04-17