André Luis Ferreira Azeredo-Da-Silva1, Silvana Perini2, Pedro Henrique Rigotti Soares2, Carisi Anne Polaczyk3. 1. Graduate Program in Epidemiology, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil; Porto Alegre Clinical Hospital, Porto Alegre, Brazil; National Institute for Health Technology Assessment (INCT/IATS-Brazil), Porto Alegre, Brazil. Electronic address: andre@htanalyze.com. 2. Porto Alegre Clinical Hospital, Porto Alegre, Brazil. 3. Graduate Program in Epidemiology, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil; National Institute for Health Technology Assessment (INCT/IATS-Brazil), Porto Alegre, Brazil; Graduate Program in Cardiology and Cardiovascular Sciences, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil; Cardiovascular Division of Porto Alegre Hospital, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dedicated units for the care of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) have been submitted to economic evaluations; however, the results have not been systematically presented. OBJECTIVE: To identify and summarize economic outcomes of studies on hospital units dedicated to the initial care of patients with suspected or confirmed ACS. METHODS: A systematic review of literature to identify economic evaluations of chest pain unit (CPU), coronary care unit (CCU), or equivalent units was done. Two search strategies were used: the first one to identify economic evaluations irrespective of study design, and the second one to identify randomized clinical trials that reported economic outcomes. The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and National Health Service (NHS)Economic Evaluation Database. Data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers. Costs were inflated to 2012 values. RESULTS: Search strategies retrieved five partial economic evaluations based on observational studies, six randomized clinical trials that reported economic outcomes, and five model-based economic evaluations. Overall, cost estimates based on observational studies and randomized clinical trials reported statistically significant cost savings of more than 50% with the adoption of CPU care instead of routine hospitalization or CCU care for suspected low-to-intermediate risk patients with ACS (median per-patient cost US $1,969.89; range US $1,002.12-13,799.15). Model-based economic evaluations reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios below US $ 50,000/quality-adjusted life-year for all comparisons between intermediate care unit, CPU, or CCU with routine hospital admissions. This finding was sensible to myocardial infarction probability. CONCLUSIONS: Published economic evaluations indicate that more intensive care is likely to be cost-effective in comparison to routine hospital admission for patients with suspected ACS.
BACKGROUND: Dedicated units for the care of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) have been submitted to economic evaluations; however, the results have not been systematically presented. OBJECTIVE: To identify and summarize economic outcomes of studies on hospital units dedicated to the initial care of patients with suspected or confirmed ACS. METHODS: A systematic review of literature to identify economic evaluations of chest pain unit (CPU), coronary care unit (CCU), or equivalent units was done. Two search strategies were used: the first one to identify economic evaluations irrespective of study design, and the second one to identify randomized clinical trials that reported economic outcomes. The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and National Health Service (NHS)Economic Evaluation Database. Data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers. Costs were inflated to 2012 values. RESULTS: Search strategies retrieved five partial economic evaluations based on observational studies, six randomized clinical trials that reported economic outcomes, and five model-based economic evaluations. Overall, cost estimates based on observational studies and randomized clinical trials reported statistically significant cost savings of more than 50% with the adoption of CPU care instead of routine hospitalization or CCU care for suspected low-to-intermediate risk patients with ACS (median per-patient cost US $1,969.89; range US $1,002.12-13,799.15). Model-based economic evaluations reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios below US $ 50,000/quality-adjusted life-year for all comparisons between intermediate care unit, CPU, or CCU with routine hospital admissions. This finding was sensible to myocardial infarction probability. CONCLUSIONS: Published economic evaluations indicate that more intensive care is likely to be cost-effective in comparison to routine hospital admission for patients with suspected ACS.