Percutaneous coronary revascularisation: Is it ever worth what it costs?

Heart

Volumn 93, Issue 10, 2007, Pages 1161-1163

  Mark, Daniel B ^a  

^a DUKE CLINICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL TRIAL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; EDITORIAL; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEART INFARCTION; HEART MUSCLE REVASCULARIZATION; HEART SURGERY; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; META ANALYSIS; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ST SEGMENT ELEVATION; STABLE ANGINA PECTORIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

ANGINA PECTORIS; ANGIOPLASTY, TRANSLUMINAL, PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HUMANS; MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; MYOCARDIAL REVASCULARIZATION;

EID: 34848916708     PISSN: 13556037     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/hrt.2007.130401     Document Type: Editorial

References (23)

1. British Heart Foundation. Percutaneous coronary interventions, 1991 to 2005, United Kingdom. http://www.heartstats.org/datapage.asp7id=836 (accessed 23 July 23 2007).
2. Rosamond W, Flegal K, Friday G, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics-2007 update: a report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Circulation 2007;115:e69-171.
3. Katritsis DG, Ioannidis JP. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus conservative therapy in nonacute coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. Circulation 2005;111:2906-12.
4. Roiron C, Sanchez P, Bouzamondo A, et al. Drug eluting stents: an updated meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Heart 2006;92:641-9.
5. Al Suwaidi J, Berger PB. Do stents reduce mortality compared with balloon angioplasty? A critical review of all the evidence. Am Heart J 2005;150:7-10.
6. Mark DB, Hlatky MA. Medical economics and the assessment of value in cardiovascular medicine: Part I. Circulation 2002;106:516-20.
7. Boden WE, O'Rourke RA, Teo KK, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2007;356:1503-16.
8. Spertus JA, Salisbury AC, Jones PG, et al. Predictors of quality-of-life benefit after percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation 2004;110:3789-94.
9. Chen AY, Daley J, Thibault GE. Angina patients' ratings of current health and health without angina: associations with severity of angina and comorbidity. Med Decis Making 1996;16:169-77.
10. Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled? Ann Intern Med 1996;125:605-13.
11. Griffin SC, Barber JA, Manca A, et al. Cost effectiveness of clinically appropriate decisions on alternative treatments for angina pectoris: prospective observational study. BMJ 2007;334:024.
12. Boersma E. Does time matter? A pooled analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing primary percutaneous coronary intervention and in-hospital fibrinolysis in acute myocardial infarction patients. Eur Heart J 2006;27:779-88.
13. Stenestrand U, Lindback J, Wallentin L. Long-term outcome of primary percutaneous coronary intervention vs prehospital and in-hospital thrombolysis for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. JAMA 2006;296:1749-56.
14. Bravo Vergel Y, Palmer S, Asseburg C, et al. Is primary angioplasty cost effective in the UK? Results of a comprehensive decision analysis. Heart 2007;93:1238-43.
15. Hochman JS, Lamas GA, Buller CE, et al. Coronary intervention for persistent occlusion after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2006;355:2395-407.
16. Bavry AA, Kumbhani DJ, Rassi AN, et al. Benefit of early invasive therapy in acute coronary syndromes: a meta-analysis of contemporary randomized clinical trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;48:1319-25.
17. Wallentin L, Lagerqvist B, Husted S, et al. Outcome at 1 year after an invasive compared with a non-invasive strategy in unstable coronary-artery disease: the FRISC II invasive randomised trial. FRISC II Investigators. Fast Revascularisation during Instability in Coronary artery disease. Lancet 2000;356:9-16.
18. Fox KA, Poole-Wilson PA, Henderson RA, et al. Interventional versus conservative treatment for patients with unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation RITA 3 randomised trial. Randomized Intervention Trial of unstable Angina. Lancet 2002;360:743-51.
19. Fox KA, Poole-Wilson P, Clayton TC, et al. 5-year outcome of an interventional strategy in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: the British Heart Foundation RITA 3 randomised trial. Lancet 2005;366:914-20.
20. Cannon CP, Weintraub WS, Demopoulos LA, et al. Comparison of early invasive and conservative strategies in patients with unstable coronary syndromes treated with the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofiban. N Engl J Med 2001;344:1879-87.
21. Mahoney EM, Jurkovitz CT, Chu H, et al. Cost and cost-effectiveness of an early invasive vs conservative strategy for the treatment of unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. JAMA 2002;288:1851-8.
22. de Winter RJ, Windhausen F, Cornel JH, et al. Early invasive versus selectively invasive management for acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1095-104.
23. The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST) Investigators. Preliminary report: effect of encainide and flecainide on mortality in a randomized trial of arrhythmia suppression after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1989;321:406-12.