Circulation journal : official journal of the Japanese Circulation Society · 2019
Cost-Effectiveness of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Compared With Medical Therapy for Ischemic Heart Disease in Japan.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kodera Satoshi, Morita Hiroyuki, Kiyosue Arihiro, Ando Jiro, Komuro Issei
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ischemic heart disease is undetermined in Japan. The aim of this study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of PCI compared with medical therapy for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and angina pectoris (AP) in Japan.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We used Markov models for STEMI and AP to assess the costs and benefits associated with PCI or medical therapy from a health system perspective. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), and ICER <¥5 m per QALY gained was judged to be cost-effective. The impact of PCI on cardiovascular events was based on previous publications. In STEMI patients, the ICER of PCI over medical treatment was ¥0.97 m per QALY gained. The cost-effectiveness probability of PCI was 99.9%. In AP patients, the ICER of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided PCI over medical treatment was ¥4.63 m per QALY gained. The cost-effectiveness probability of PCI was 50.4%. The ICER of FFR-guided PCI for asymptomatic patients was ¥23 m per QALY gained.
CONCLUSIONS: In STEMI patients, PCI was cost-effective compared with medical therapy. In AP patients, FFR-guided PCI for symptomatic patients could be cost-effective compared with medical therapy. FFR-guided PCI for asymptomatic patients with myocardial ischemia was not cost-effective.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We used Markov models for STEMI and AP to assess the costs and benefits associated with PCI or medical therapy from a health system perspective. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), and ICER <¥5 m per QALY gained was judged to be cost-effective. The impact of PCI on cardiovascular events was based on previous publications. In STEMI patients, the ICER of PCI over medical treatment was ¥0.97 m per QALY gained. The cost-effectiveness probability of PCI was 99.9%. In AP patients, the ICER of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided PCI over medical treatment was ¥4.63 m per QALY gained. The cost-effectiveness probability of PCI was 50.4%. The ICER of FFR-guided PCI for asymptomatic patients was ¥23 m per QALY gained.
CONCLUSIONS: In STEMI patients, PCI was cost-effective compared with medical therapy. In AP patients, FFR-guided PCI for symptomatic patients could be cost-effective compared with medical therapy. FFR-guided PCI for asymptomatic patients with myocardial ischemia was not cost-effective.