The cost-effectiveness of guideline-driven use of drug-eluting stents: propensity-score matched analysis of a seven-year multicentre experience

The cost-effectiveness of radial access percutaneous coronary intervention: A propensity-score matched analysis of Victorian data

Background

Despite evidence of the comparative benefits of transradial access percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) over transfemoral access, its uptake remains highly varied across Australia. Few studies have explored the implications of the choice of access site during PCI from the perspective of the Australian healthcare setting. We, therefore, performed a cost‐effectiveness analysis of radial versus femoral access PCI.

Methods

Data from the Victorian Cardiac Outcomes Registry (VCOR) were used to inform our economic analyses. Patients treated through either radial or femoral access PCI were propensity score‐matched using the inverse probability weighted (IPW) method, and the incidence of major bleeding and all‐cause mortality in the cohort was used to inform an economic model comprising a hypothetical sample of 1000 patients. Costs and utility data were drawn from published sources. The economic evaluation adopted the perspective of the Australian healthcare system.

Results

Among a cohort of 1000 patients over 1 year, there were 19 fewer deaths, and six fewer episodes of nonfatal major bleeding in the radial group compared to the femoral group. Total cost savings attributed to radial access was AUD $1 214 688. Hence, from a health economic point of view, radial access PCI was dominant over femoral access PCI. Sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of these findings.

Conclusions

Radial access is associated with improved patient outcomes and considerably lower costs relative to femoral access PCI. Our findings support radial access being the preferred approach for PCI across a variety of indications in Australia.

Estimating the economic impacts of percutaneous coronary intervention in Australia: a registry-based cost burden study

OBJECTIVES

In this study, we sought to evaluate the costs of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) across a variety of indications in Victoria, Australia, using a direct per-person approach, as well as to identify key cost drivers.

DESIGN

A cost-burden study of PCI in Victoria was conducted from the Australian healthcare system perspective.

SETTING

A linked dataset of patients admitted to public hospitals for PCI in Victoria was drawn from the Victorian Cardiac Outcomes Registry (VCOR) and the Victorian Admitted Episodes Dataset. Generalised linear regression modelling was used to evaluate key cost drivers. From 2014 to 2017, 20 345 consecutive PCIs undertaken in Victorian public hospitals were captured in VCOR.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Direct healthcare costs attributed to PCI, estimated using a casemix funding method.

RESULTS

Key cost drivers identified in the cost model included procedural complexity, patient length of stay and vascular access site. Although the total procedural cost increased from $A55 569 740 in 2014 to $A72 179 656 in 2017, mean procedural costs remained stable over time ($A12 521 in 2014 to $A12 185 in 2017) after adjustment for confounding factors. Mean procedural costs were also stable across patient indications for PCI ($A9872 for unstable angina to $A15 930 for ST-elevation myocardial infarction) after adjustment for confounding factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall cost burden attributed to PCIs in Victoria is rising over time. However, despite increasing procedural complexity, mean procedural costs remained stable over time which may be, in part, attributed to changes in clinical practice.

Applying a framework to assess the impact of cardiovascular outcomes improvement research

Background

Health and medical research funding agencies are increasingly interested in measuring the impact of funded research. We present a research impact case study for the first four years of an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council funded Centre of Research Excellence in Cardiovascular Outcomes Improvement (2016–2020). The primary aim of this paper was to explore the application of a research impact matrix to assess the impact of cardiovascular outcomes improvement research.

Methods

We applied a research impact matrix developed from a systematic review of existing methodological frameworks used to measure research impact. This impact matrix was used as a bespoke tool to identify and understand various research impacts over different time frames. Data sources included a review of existing internal documentation from the research centre and publicly available information sources, informal iterative discussions with 10 centre investigators, and confirmation of information from centre grant and scholarship recipients.

Results

By July 2019, the impact on the short-term research domain category included over 41 direct publications, which were cited over 87 times (median journal impact factor of 2.84). There were over 61 conference presentations, seven PhD candidacies, five new academic collaborations, and six new database linkages conducted. The impact on the mid-term research domain category involved contributions towards the development of a national cardiac registry, cardiovascular guidelines, application for a Medicare Benefits Schedule reimbursement item number, introduction of patient-reported outcome measures into several databases, and the establishment of nine new industry collaborations. Evidence of long-term impacts were described as the development and use of contemporary management for aortic stenosis, a cardiovascular risk prediction model and prevention targets in several data registries, and the establishment of cost-effectiveness for stenting compared to surgery.

Conclusions

We considered the research impact matrix a feasible tool to identify evidence of academic and policy impact in the short- to midterm; however, we experienced challenges in capturing long-term impacts. Cost containment and broader economic impacts represented another difficult area of impact to measure.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-021-00710-4.