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.
Economic evidence of interventions for acute myocardial infarction: a review of the literature
CALLEA, GIUDITTA;TARRICONE, ROSANNA;MEDINA DE MUJICA, MARIA ANTONIETA DE
2012
Abstract
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.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
