Primary angioplasty is cost-minimizing compared with pre-hospital thrombolysis for patients within 60 min of a percutaneous coronary intervention center

Critical Appraisal of the Current Role of Myocardial Perfusion Imaging in the Management of Acute Chest Pain

This paper describes the evolution of nuclear cardiology techniques in the setting of acute coronary syndromes. Since the 1970s, the contribution of nuclear cardiology has been fundamental in delineating the physiopathology and diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction, when electrocardiogram (ECG) did not provide the diagnosis and when cardiac enzyme assessments were at a very early stage. In this clinical situation, at that time the role of pyrophosphate scintigraphy and antimyosin antibodies was important in ensuring diagnostic precision. However, these methods showed limitations and were abandoned in the late 80s and early 90s when therapeutic applications such as thrombolytic therapy, and primary-and rescue-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were introduced. Beginning in the mid-80s, the introduction and widespread use of perfusion tracers such as 99mTc labelled compounds and technological advances such as SPECT, allowed to assess the efficacy of thrombolysis and early revascularization, as well as to assess in depth myocardial salvage. Currently, perfusion SPECT, especially using fast imaging techniques and dedicated cardiac SPECT with solid-state detectors, allows a quick confirmation or exclusion of acute coronary syndromes, particularly in low-to-intermediate likelihood of coronary artery disease (CAD), especially when there are absolute or relative contraindications to the use of coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA).

Safety of returning patients immediately to their originating hospitals after primary percutaneous coronary intervention

Introduction

The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of the immediate return of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) to their originating hospitals after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI).

Methods

This was a prospective study, conducted between January 2014 and December 2017. All patients with STEMI who were transferred for PPCI and returned back to their referring hospitals (RB group) were included and compared to the onsite STEMI population (OS group). Patient’s demographics, PPCI data, bleeding and adverse cardiovascular events (ACEs) occurring during transfer, hospital stay, and at 1-month follow-up were recorded.

Results

A total of 156 patients in the OS group were compared against 350 patients in the RB group. We found that first medical contact to balloon time and onset of symptoms to balloon time were significantly longer in the RB group than in the OS group [110 ± 67 min vs. 46 ± 35 min (p < 0.0001) and 366 ± 300 min vs. 312 ± 120 min (p = 0.04)], respectively. There were no differences between the RB and OS groups in in-hospital ACEs: 0.3% versus 0% (p = 0.8) for death, 0.3% versus 0.6% (p = 0.79) for reinfarction, 0.6% versus 2% (p = 0.72) for bleeding, and no reported cases of repeat revascularization; and 30-day ACEs: 0.3% versus 0.6% (p = 0.82) for death, 0.3% versus 1.2% (p = 0.68) for reinfarction, 0.6% versus 2% (p = 0.74) for bleeding, and 1.1% versus 1.2% (p = 0.9) for repeat revascularization.

Conclusion

The immediate return of patients with noncomplicated STEMI after PPCI to their referring hospitals is safe and feasible, and can be used as part of an effective reperfusion strategy.

Cost Effectiveness of Antiplatelet and Antithrombotic Therapy in the Setting of Acute Coronary Syndrome: Current Perspective and Literature Review

Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. The advances of antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy over several years time have resulted in improved in cardiac outcomes, but with increased health care costs. Multiple cost-effectiveness studies have been performed to evaluate the use of available antiplatelet agents and anticoagulation in the setting of both ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). Early on, the use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors (GPIs) proved to be economically attractive in the management of ACS; however, the introduction of P2Y12 receptor antagonists limited their use to a bail out agents in complex interventions. Generic clopidogrel is probably still an economically attractive P2Y12 receptor antagonist choice, especially in low-risk ACS, while both ticagrelor and prasugrel present an economically attractive alternative option, especially in high-risk ACS and patients at risk for stent thrombosis. While enoxaparin presents an economically dominant alternative to heparin in NSTE-ACS, its role in STEMI in the contemporary era is unclear. During percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), bivalirudin monotherapy was shown to be an economically dominant alternative to the combination of heparin and GPI in ACS. However, new studies may suggest that using heparin monotherapy may offer an attractive alternative. The comparative and cost effectiveness of different combinations of antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapy will be the focus of future expected clinical and economic assessments.

Economic evidence of interventions for acute myocardial infarction: a review of the literature

AIMS

The aims of this review are to identify and evaluate studies exploring the cost-effectiveness of primary angioplasty (PPCI) vs. thrombolysis (TL) for treating acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

METHODS AND RESULTS

A comprehensive free-text searching identified economic evaluation studies that were reviewed with respect to their effectiveness data, identification, measurement and valuation of resource data, measurement and valuation of health outcomes (clinical and QALYs) and uncertainty analysis. A total of 14 studies were included in the review: seven were economic evaluations alongside RCTs, two community-based studies or registries and five decision-analytical models. PPCI was found to be cost-effective when compared with TL in eight studies, cost-saving in three, cost-neutral in one, and not significantly different in terms of both cost and benefits in two studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effective evidence available is mainly derived from RCTs with stringent inclusion criteria using established catheter laboratories for providing PPCI treatment; these two components might restrict the generalisability of their "for managing patients with STEMI in hospital" settings. In order to aid policy makers on the real costs and benefits of the PPCI and TL, it is necessary to conduct more analyses with data from the real world in which there are more strategies evaluated for delivering PPCI than merely those in established catheter laboratories.

Cost and health outcome of primary percutaneous coronary intervention versus thrombolysis in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-Results of the Swedish Early Decision reperfusion Study (SWEDES) trial

BACKGROUND

In ST-elevation myocardial infarction, primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has a superior clinical outcome, but it may increase costs in comparison to thrombolysis. The aim of the study was to compare costs, clinical outcome, and quality-adjusted survival between primary PCI and thrombolysis.

METHODS

Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction were randomized to primary PCI with adjunctive enoxaparin and abciximab (n = 101), or to enoxaparin followed by reteplase (n = 104). Data on the use of health care resources, work loss, and health-related quality of life were collected during a 1-year period. Cost-effectiveness was determined by comparing costs and quality-adjusted survival. The joint distribution of incremental costs and quality-adjusted survival was analyzed using a nonparametric bootstrap approach.

RESULTS

Clinical outcome did not differ significantly between the groups. Compared with the group treated with thrombolysis, the cost of interventions was higher in the PCI-treated group ($4,602 vs $3,807; P = .047), as well as the cost of drugs ($1,309 vs $1,202; P = .001), whereas the cost of hospitalization was lower ($7,344 vs $9,278; P = .025). The cost of investigations, outpatient care, and loss of production did not differ significantly between the 2 treatment arms. Total cost and quality-adjusted survival were $25,315 and 0.759 vs $27,819 and 0.728 (both not significant) for the primary PCI and thrombolysis groups, respectively. Based on the 1-year follow-up, bootstrap analysis revealed that in 80%, 88%, and 89% of the replications, the cost per health outcome gained for PCI will be <$0, $50,000, and $100,000 respectively.

CONCLUSION

In a 1-year perspective, there was a tendency toward lower costs and better health outcome after primary PCI, resulting in costs for PCI in comparison to thrombolysis that will be below the conventional threshold for cost-effectiveness in 88% of bootstrap replications.

Safety and feasibility of returning patients early to their originating centers after transfer for primary percutaneous coronary intervention

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

At present, little information is available on returning patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) to their originating centers after transfer for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of the early return of these patients to their originating centers.

METHODS

The cohort study involved 200 consecutive STEMI patients (age 62+/-13 years, 83% male) who were returned to their originating centers after PPCI. They were compared with a group of 297 patients with similar characteristics from our healthcare catchment area. The length of stay in the intervention hospital and major adverse cardiovascular events occurring within 30 days were recorded.

RESULTS

The median length of stay in the intervention hospital was 8 hours. No adverse events occurred during transport in the group who returned to their originating centers. At 30-day follow-up, no significant difference was observed between patients who returned and the control group in either mortality (1.0% vs. 3.7%; P=.064), readmission (5.0% vs. 4.5%; P=.657), ischemic complications (2.5% vs. 2.0%; P=.721), re-catheterization (5.0% vs. 2.5%; P=.112), stroke (1% vs. 1%; P=.936) or the composite end-point (11% vs. 9.2%; P=.540). Multivariate analysis showed that returning patients after PPCI was not associated with a significantly greater number of major adverse cardiovascular events (odds ratio=1.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-2.80).

CONCLUSIONS

The early return of patients with low-risk STEMI to their originating centers after PPCI was safe and feasible.