OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and cost-effectiveness of short-stay intensive care (SSIC) treatment for low-risk coronary artery bypass patients. DESIGN: Randomized clinical equivalence trial. SETTING: University Hospital Maastricht, the Netherlands. PATIENTS: Low-risk coronary artery bypass patients. INTERVENTIONS: A total of 600 patients were randomly assigned to undergo either SSIC treatment (8 hrs of intensive care treatment) or control treatment (care as usual, overnight intensive care treatment). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome measures were intensive care readmissions and total hospital stay. The secondary outcome measures were total hospital costs, quality of life, postoperative morbidity, and mortality. Hospital costs consisted of the cost of hospital admission or admissions and outpatient costs. MAIN RESULTS: The difference in intensive care readmission between the two groups of 1.13% was very small and not significantly different (p = .241; 95% confidence interval, -0.9% to 2.9%). The total hospital stay (p = .807; 95% confidence interval, 1.2 to -0.4) and postoperative morbidity were comparable between the groups. The SSIC group's quality of life improved more compared with the control group's quality of life (p = .0238; 95% confidence interval, 0.0012 to 0.0464). The total hospital costs for SSIC were significantly lower (95% confidence interval, -1,581 to -174) compared with those for the control group (4,625 and 5,441, respectively). The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (cost/delta quality-adjusted life months) thus showed the dominance of SSIC. Bootstrap and sensitivity analyses confirm the robustness of the study findings. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with usual care, SSIC is a safe and cost-effective approach. SSIC can be considered as an alternative for conventional postoperative intensive care treatment for low-risk coronary artery bypass graft patients.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and cost-effectiveness of short-stay intensive care (SSIC) treatment for low-risk coronary artery bypass patients. DESIGN: Randomized clinical equivalence trial. SETTING: University Hospital Maastricht, the Netherlands. PATIENTS: Low-risk coronary artery bypass patients. INTERVENTIONS: A total of 600 patients were randomly assigned to undergo either SSIC treatment (8 hrs of intensive care treatment) or control treatment (care as usual, overnight intensive care treatment). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome measures were intensive care readmissions and total hospital stay. The secondary outcome measures were total hospital costs, quality of life, postoperative morbidity, and mortality. Hospital costs consisted of the cost of hospital admission or admissions and outpatient costs. MAIN RESULTS: The difference in intensive care readmission between the two groups of 1.13% was very small and not significantly different (p = .241; 95% confidence interval, -0.9% to 2.9%). The total hospital stay (p = .807; 95% confidence interval, 1.2 to -0.4) and postoperative morbidity were comparable between the groups. The SSIC group's quality of life improved more compared with the control group's quality of life (p = .0238; 95% confidence interval, 0.0012 to 0.0464). The total hospital costs for SSIC were significantly lower (95% confidence interval, -1,581 to -174) compared with those for the control group (4,625 and 5,441, respectively). The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (cost/delta quality-adjusted life months) thus showed the dominance of SSIC. Bootstrap and sensitivity analyses confirm the robustness of the study findings. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with usual care, SSIC is a safe and cost-effective approach. SSIC can be considered as an alternative for conventional postoperative intensive care treatment for low-risk coronary artery bypass graft patients.
Authors: Ghislaine A P G van Mastrigt; Manuela A Joore; Fred H M Nieman; Johan L Severens; Jos G Maessen Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-03-26 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Manon C Stam-Slob; Yolanda van der Graaf; Jacoba P Greving; Jannick A N Dorresteijn; Frank L J Visseren Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-02-18 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Alexander V van Schoonhoven; Judith J Gout-Zwart; Marijke J S de Vries; Antoinette D I van Asselt; Evgeni Dvortsin; Pepijn Vemer; Job F M van Boven; Maarten J Postma Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-09-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Gijs F N Berkelmans; Jacoba P Greving; Yolanda van der Graaf; Frank L J Visseren; Jannick A N Dorresteijn Journal: Diagn Progn Res Date: 2020-04-16