Tonje R Johannessen1,2, Sigrun Halvorsen3,4, Dan Atar3,4, John Munkhaugen5,6, Anne Kathrine Nore7, Torbjørn Wisløff8, Odd Martin Vallersnes9,7. 1. Department of General Practice, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, 1130 Blindern, 0318, Oslo, NO, Norway. t.r.johannessen@medisin.uio.no. 2. Oslo Accident and Emergency Outpatient Clinic, City of Oslo Health Agency, Oslo, Norway. t.r.johannessen@medisin.uio.no. 3. Department of Cardiology, Oslo University Hospital Ullevaal, Oslo, Norway. 4. Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. 5. Department of Medicine, Drammen Hospital, Vestre Viken Hospital Trust, Drammen, Norway. 6. Department of Behavioural Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. 7. Oslo Accident and Emergency Outpatient Clinic, City of Oslo Health Agency, Oslo, Norway. 8. Health Services Research Unit, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway. 9. Department of General Practice, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, 1130 Blindern, 0318, Oslo, NO, Norway.
Abstract
AIMS: Hospital admissions of patients with chest pain considered as low risk for acute coronary syndrome contribute to increased costs and crowding in the emergency departments. This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of assessing these patients in a primary care emergency setting, using the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 0/1-h algorithm for high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T, compared to routine hospital management. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted. For the primary care estimates, costs and health care expenditure from the observational OUT-ACS (One-hoUr Troponin in a low-prevalence population of Acute Coronary Syndrome) study were compared with anonymous extracted administrative data on low-risk patients at a large general hospital in Norway. Patients discharged home after the hs-cTnT assessment were defined as low risk in the primary care cohort. In the hospital setting, the low-risk group comprised patients discharged with a non-specific chest pain diagnosis (ICD-10 codes R07.4 and Z03.5). Loss of health related to a potential increase in acute myocardial infarctions the following 30-days was estimated. The primary outcome measure was the costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of applying the ESC 0/1-h algorithm in primary care. The secondary outcomes were health care costs and length of stay in the two settings. RESULTS: Differences in costs comprise personnel and laboratory costs of applying the algorithm at primary care level (€192) and expenses related to ambulance transports and complete hospital costs for low-risk patients admitted to hospital (€1986). Additional diagnostic procedures were performed in 31.9% (181/567) of the low-risk hospital cohort. The estimated reduction in health care cost when using the 0/1-h algorithm outside of hospital was €1794 per low-risk patient, with a mean decrease in length of stay of 18.9 h. These numbers result in an average per-person QALY gain of 0.0005. Increased QALY and decreased costs indicate that the primary care approach is clearly cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Using the ESC 0/1-h algorithm in low-risk patients in emergency primary care appears to be cost-effective compared to standard hospital management, with an extensive reduction in costs and length of stay per patient.
AIMS: Hospital admissions of patients with chest pain considered as low risk for acute coronary syndrome contribute to increased costs and crowding in the emergency departments. This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of assessing these patients in a primary care emergency setting, using the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 0/1-h algorithm for high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T, compared to routine hospital management. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted. For the primary care estimates, costs and health care expenditure from the observational OUT-ACS (One-hoUr Troponin in a low-prevalence population of Acute Coronary Syndrome) study were compared with anonymous extracted administrative data on low-risk patients at a large general hospital in Norway. Patients discharged home after the hs-cTnT assessment were defined as low risk in the primary care cohort. In the hospital setting, the low-risk group comprised patients discharged with a non-specific chest pain diagnosis (ICD-10 codes R07.4 and Z03.5). Loss of health related to a potential increase in acute myocardial infarctions the following 30-days was estimated. The primary outcome measure was the costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of applying the ESC 0/1-h algorithm in primary care. The secondary outcomes were health care costs and length of stay in the two settings. RESULTS: Differences in costs comprise personnel and laboratory costs of applying the algorithm at primary care level (€192) and expenses related to ambulance transports and complete hospital costs for low-risk patients admitted to hospital (€1986). Additional diagnostic procedures were performed in 31.9% (181/567) of the low-risk hospital cohort. The estimated reduction in health care cost when using the 0/1-h algorithm outside of hospital was €1794 per low-risk patient, with a mean decrease in length of stay of 18.9 h. These numbers result in an average per-person QALY gain of 0.0005. Increased QALY and decreased costs indicate that the primary care approach is clearly cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Using the ESC 0/1-h algorithm in low-risk patients in emergency primary care appears to be cost-effective compared to standard hospital management, with an extensive reduction in costs and length of stay per patient.
Authors: Beatrijs Bn Hoorweg; Robert Ta Willemsen; Lotte E Cleef; Tom Boogaerts; Frank Buntinx; Jan Fc Glatz; Geert Jan Dinant Journal: Heart Date: 2017-06-20 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Abdulrhman Alghamdi; Ahmed Alotaibi; Meshal Alharbi; Charles Reynard; Richard Body Journal: Prehosp Disaster Med Date: 2020-07-09 Impact factor: 2.040
Authors: François Verdon; Lilli Herzig; Bernard Burnand; Thomas Bischoff; Alain Pécoud; Michel Junod; Nicole Mühlemann; Bernard Favrat Journal: Swiss Med Wkly Date: 2008-06-14 Impact factor: 2.193
Authors: Robert T A Willemsen; Michelle M A Kip; Hendrik Koffijberg; Ron Kusters; Frank Buntinx; Jan F C Glatz; Geert Jan Dinant Journal: Prim Health Care Res Dev Date: 2017-12-18 Impact factor: 1.458
Authors: Ralf E Harskamp; Simone C Laeven; Jelle Cl Himmelreich; Wim A M Lucassen; Henk C P M van Weert Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-02-27 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Angel M R Schols; Tessa A van Boekholt; Lex M R Oversier; Geert-Jan Dinant; Jochen W L Cals Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-08-12 Impact factor: 2.692