Clinical outcomes and cost implications of routine early PCI after fibrinolysis: One-year follow-up of the Trial of Routine Angioplasty and Stenting after Fibrinolysis to Enhance Reperfusion in Acute Myocardial Infarction (TRANSFER-AMI) study

University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
American heart journal (Impact Factor: 4.46). 04/2013; 165(4):630-637.e2. DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2012.12.016
Source: PubMed


In patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with fibrinolysis, routine early percutaneous coronary intervention (r-PCI) improves clinical outcomes at 30 days compared with a more standard approach of performing early PCI only for failed fibrinolysis (s-PCI).
We report prespecified secondary clinical outcomes and cost implications of r-PCI compared with s-PCI from the Canadian TRANSFER-AMI trial. Average cost per patient in each arm was calculated based on a microcosting approach. Bootstrap method (5,000 samples) was used to calculate standard errors and 95% CI.
At 1 year, rates of death or reinfarction (10.3% vs 11.6%, P = .50), hospital readmission (15.4% vs 16.5%, P = .64) and subsequent revascularization after index hospitalization (6.9% vs 8.7%, P = .30) were similar between the r-PCI and s-PCI arms. The difference in cost per patient between r-PCI and s-PCI was CAD $1,003 (95% CI, -$247 to $2,211). Since a greater proportion of patients were transported by air (vs land) in the r-PCI arm (9.4% vs 3%), and the ratio of abciximab to eptifibatide use was higher in the r-PCI arm compared with s-PCI (2:1 vs 4:5), we undertook additional post hoc cost scenario analyses. In a scenario where patients are transported by land only and eptifibatide is used as the sole GPIIb/IIIa inhibitor, the difference in cost per patient between r-PCI and s-PCI was estimated to be CAD $108 (95% CI, -$1,114 to $1,344).
At 1 year, there is no difference in the clinical composite outcome of death or reinfarction between r-PCI and s-PCI strategies. Greater cost with r-PCI, although statistically insignificant, is economically important.

Download full-text


Available from: Bjug Borgundvaag,
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Todas las guías recomiendan la intervención coronaria percutánea primaria como estrategia por defecto para el tratamiento de reperfusión de pacientes con infarto agudo de miocardio con elevación del segmento ST. Estas recomendaciones se basan en ensayos aleatorizados en los que se ha comparado la intervención coronaria percutánea primaria con la fibrinolisis intravenosa sola. Sin embargo, desde la época en que se llevaron a cabo esos ensayos, se han realizado otros estudios que han puesto de manifiesto que usar la intervención coronaria percutánea de rescate en pacientes que no presentan signos de reperfusión después del tratamiento lítico y la angiografía coronaria sistemática en las primeras 24 h tras la administración de dicho tratamiento para todos los demás pacientes mejora los resultados del tratamiento fibrinolítico intravenoso. Esto ha llevado a proponer la estrategia farmacoinvasiva como alternativa a la intervención coronaria percutánea primaria. De hecho, no es infrecuente que las circunstancias concretas impidan la intervención coronaria percutánea primaria dentro de los límites temporales recomendados en las guías. En tales casos, el uso de una estrategia farmacoinvasiva puede ser una alternativa válida. Tanto el ensayo aleatorizado STREAM como la experiencia de la práctica clínica real, y en especial los resultados a largo plazo del registro FAST-MI, indican que la estrategia farmacoinvasiva, cuando se utiliza en una población adecuada, puede compararse favorablemente con la intervención coronaria percutánea primaria. Así pues, la puesta en práctica de un protocolo de estrategia farmacoinvasiva puede ser un complemento importante para compensar las posibles limitaciones de las redes de tratamiento del infarto agudo de miocardio con elevación del segmento ST.
    Revista Espanola de Cardiologia 08/2014; 67(8). DOI:10.1016/j.recesp.2014.04.006 · 3.34 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Platelet adhesion and aggregation at the site of coronary stenting can have catastrophic clinical and economic consequences. Therefore, effective platelet inhibition is vital during and after percutaneous coronary intervention. Eptifibatide is an intravenous antiplatelet agent that blocks the final common pathway of platelet aggregation and thrombus formation by binding to glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptors on the surface of platelets. In clinical studies, eptifibatide was associated with a significant reduction of mortality, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. However, recent trials conducted in the era of dual antiplatelet therapy and newer anticoagulants failed to demonstrate similar results. The previously seen favorable benefit of eptifibatide was mainly offset by the increased risk of bleeding. Current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines recommend its use as an adjunct in high-risk patients who are undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with traditional anticoagulants (heparin or enoxaparin), who are not otherwise at high risk of bleeding. In patients receiving bivalirudin (a newer safer anticoagulant), routine use of eptifibatide is discouraged except in select situations (eg, angiographic complications). Although older pharmacoeconomic studies favor eptifibatide, in the current era of P2Y12 inhibitors and newer safer anticoagulants, the increased costs associated with bleeding make the routine use of eptifibatide an economically nonviable option. The cost-effectiveness of eptifibatide with the use of strategies that decrease the bleeding risk (eg, transradial access) is unknown. This review provides an overview of key clinical and economic studies of eptifibatide well into the current era of potent antiplatelet agents, novel safer anticoagulants, and contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention.
    Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management 08/2014; 10(1):603-14. DOI:10.2147/TCRM.S35664 · 1.47 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is significant interest in measuring health care value, but this concept has not been operationalized in specific patient cohorts. The longitudinal outcomes and costs for patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) provide an opportunity to measure an aspect of health care value. This study evaluated variations in 1-year outcomes (risk-adjusted mortality) and risk-standardized costs of care for all patients undergoing PCI in the Veterans Affairs (VA) system from 2007 to 2010. This retrospective cohort study evaluated all veterans undergoing PCI at any of 60 hospitals in the VA health care system, using data from the national VA Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking (CART) program. Primary outcomes were 1-year mortality and costs following PCI. Risk-standardized mortality and cost ratios were calculated, adjusting for cardiac and noncardiac comorbidities. A median of 261 PCIs were performed in the 60 hospitals during the study period. Median 1-year unadjusted hospital mortality rate was 6.13%. Four hospitals were significantly above the 1-year risk-standardized median mortality rate, with median mortality ratios ranging from 1.23 to 1.28. No hospitals were significantly below median mortality. Median 1-year total unadjusted hospital costs were $46,302 per patient. There were 16 hospitals above and 19 hospitals below the risk-standardized median cost, with risk-standardized ratios ranging from 0.45 to 2.09, reflecting a much larger magnitude of variability in costs than in mortality. There is much smaller variation in 1-year risk adjusted mortality than in risk-standardized costs after PCI in the VA. These findings suggest that there are opportunities to improve PCI value by reducing costs without compromising outcomes. This approach to evaluating outcomes and costs together may be a model for other health systems and accountable care organizations interested in operationalizing value measurement. Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Journal of the American College of Cardiology 01/2015; 65(3):236-42. DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2014.10.048 · 16.50 Impact Factor
Show more

We use cookies to give you the best possible experience on ResearchGate. Read our cookies policy to learn more.