Clinical and cost-effectiveness analysis of an open label, single-centre, randomised trial of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) versus percutaneous myocardial laser revascularisation (PMR) in patients with refractory angina pectoris: The SPiRiT trial

Trials

Volumn 9, Issue , 2008, Pages

  Dyer, Matthew T ^a,c   Goldsmith, Kimberley A ^b,c   Khan, Sadia N ^c   Sharples, Linda D ^b,c   Freeman, Carol ^c   Hardy, Ian ^c   Buxton, Martin J ^a,c   Schofield, Pater M ^c  

^a BRUNEL UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b MRC BIOSTATISTICS UNIT   (United Kingdom)

^c PAPWORTH HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATENOLOL; CALCIUM ANTAGONIST; DIPEPTIDYL CARBOXYPEPTIDASE INHIBITOR; DIURETIC AGENT; FUROSEMIDE; GLYCERYL TRINITRATE; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL COENZYME A REDUCTASE INHIBITOR; ISOSORBIDE 5 NITRATE; LISINOPRIL; LONG ACTING DRUG; NITRATE; SIMVASTATIN;

ANGINA PECTORIS; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; EUROQOL; EXERCISE TOLERANCE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEART MUSCLE REVASCULARIZATION; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LASER SURGERY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OPEN STUDY; PERCUTANEOUS MYOCARDIAL LASER REVASCULARIZATION; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REFRACTORY ANGINA PECTORIS; SEATTLE ANGINA QUESTIONNAIRE; SHORT FORM 36; SPINAL CORD STIMULATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 48249095923     PISSN: 17456215     EISSN: 17456215     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-9-40     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Mannheimer C Camici P Chester MR Collins A DeJongste M Eliasson T Follath F Hellemans I Herlitz J Luscher T Pasic M Thelle D The problem of chronic refractory angina: A report from the ESC Joint Study Group on the Treatment of Refractory Angina Eur Heart J 2002, 23:355-370. 10.1053/ euhj.2001.2706 11846493
2. Burkhoff D Schmidt S Schulman SP Myers J Resar J Becker LC Jones JW Transmyocardial laser revascularisation compared with continued medical therapy for treatment of refractory angina pectoris: A prospective randomised trial Lancet 1999, 354:885-890. 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)08113-1 10489946
3. Schofield PM Sharples LD Caine N Burns S Tait S Wistow T Buxton M Wallwork J Transmyocardial laser revascularisation in patients with refractory angina: A randomised controlled trial Lancet 1999, 353:519-24. 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)11478-2 10028979
4. Campbell HE Tait S Buxton MJ Sharples LD Caine N Schofield PM Wallwork J A trial-based cost-utility analysis of transmyocardial laser revascularisation compared to continued medical therapy for treatment of refractory angina pectoris Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2001, 20:312-318. 10.1016/S1010-7940(01)00801-6 11463549
5. Oesterle SN Sanborn TA Ali N Resar J Ramee SR Heuser R Dean L Knopf W Schofield P Schaer GL Reeder G Masden R Yeung AC Burkhoff D Percutaneous transmyocardial laser revascularisation for severe angina: The PACIFIC randomised trial Lancet 2000, 356:1705-10. 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)03203-7 11095257
6. Gray TJ Burns SM Clarke SC Tait S Sharples LD Caine N Schofield PM Percutaneous myocardial laser revascularisation in patients with refractory angina pectoris Am J Cardiol 2003, 91:661-6. 10.1016/ S0002-9149(02)03303-9 12633794
7. Campbell HE Tait S Sharples LD Caine N Gray TJ Schofield PM Buxton MJ Trial-based cost-utility comparison of percutaneous myocardial laser revascularisation and continued medical therapy for treatment of refractory angina pectoris Eur J Health Econ 2005, 6:288-97. 10.1007/ s10198-005-0310-5 16195897
8. Hautvast RW DeJongste MJ Staal MJ van Glist WH Lie KI Spinal cord stimulation in chronic intractable angina pectoris: A randomised, controlled efficacy study Am Heart J 1998, 136:1114-1120. 10.1016/ S0002-8703(98)70171-1 9842028
9. Andersen C Hole P Oxhoj H Does pain relief with spinal cord stimulation for angina conceal myocardial infarction? Br Heart J 1994, 71:419-21. 483716 8011404 10.1136/hrt.71.5.419
10. Di Pede F Lanza GA Zuin G Alfieri O Rapati M Romano M Circo A Cardano P Belloci F Santini M Maseri A Immediate and long-term clinical outcome after spinal cord stimulation for refractory stable angina pectoris Am J Cardiol 2003, 91:951-955. 10.1016/S0002-9149(03)00110-3 12686334
11. Mannheimer C Eliasson T Augustinsson LE Blomstrand C Emanuelsson H Larsson S Norssell H Hjalmarsson A Electrical Stimulation Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery in Severe Angina Pectoris: The ESBY Study Circulation 1998, 97:1157-1163. 9537342
12. De Jongste MJ Staal MJ Preliminary results of a randomized study on the clinical efficacy of spinal cord stimulation for refractory severe angina pectoris Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien) 1993, 58:161-4. 8109281
13. Yu W Maru F Edner M Hellstrom K Kahan T Persson H Spinal cord stimulation for refractory angina pectoris: A retrospective analysis of efficacy and cost-benefit Coronary Artery Disease 2004, 15:31-37. 10.1097/00019501-200402000-00005 15201618
14. Murray S Carson KGS Ewings PD Collins PD James MA Spinal cord stimulation significantly decreases the need for acute hospital admission for chest pain in patients with refractory angina pectoris Heart 1999, 82:89-92. 1729095 10377316
15. Merry AF Smith WM Anderson DJ Emmens DJ Choong CK Cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation in patients with intractable angina N Z Med J 2001, 114:179-181. 11396665
16. Rasmussen MB Hole P Andersen C Electrical spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in the treatment of angina: A cost-utility analysis Neuromodulation 2004, 7:89-96. 10.1111/j.1094-7159.2004.04012.x
17. Andrell P Ekre O Eliasson T Blomstrand C Borjesson M Nilsson M Mannheimer C Cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with severe angina pectoris - long-term results from the ESBY study Cardiology 2003, 99:20-4. 10.1159/000068447 12589118
18. McNab D Khan SN Sharples LD Ryan JY Freeman C Caine N Tait S Hardy I Schofield PM An open label, single-centre, randomized trial of spinal cord stimulation vs. percutaneous myocardi al laser revascularization in patients with refractory angina pectoris: The SPiRiT trial Eur Heart J 2006, 27:1048-53. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehi827 16554313
19. Department of Health The NHS 2005-06 reference costs Department of Health: Wetherby 2006.
20. British Medical Association and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain The British National Formulary, Number 52 British Medical Association and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain: Wallingford 2006.
21. Dolan P Gudex C Kind P Williams A A social tariff for EuroQol: Results from a UK general population survey Discussion Paper 138 York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York 2005
22. Efron B Tibshirani RJ An introduction to the bootstrap San Francisco: Chapman and Hall 1993.
23. National Institute for Clinical Excellence Guide to the methods of technology appraisal (N0515) London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence 2004.
24. Willan AR Lin DY Cook RJ Chen EB Using inverse-weighting in cost-effectiveness analysis with censored data Stat Methods Med Res 2002, 11:539-51. 10.1191/0962280202sm308ra 12516988
25. The British Pain Society Spinal cord stimulation for the management of pain: Recommendations for best clinical practice London: The British Pain Society 2005.
26. Devlin N Parkin D Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis Health Econ 2004, 13:437-452. 10.1002/hec.864 15127424
27. Rawlins MD Culyer AJ National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgements BMJ 2004, 329:224-227. 487742 15271836 10.1136/ bmj.329.7459.224
28. Ware JE Snow KK Kosinski M Gandek B SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and interpretation guide Boston MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Centre 1993.
29. Brazier J Usherwood T Harper R Thomas K Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey J Clin Epidemiol 1998, 51:1115-1128. 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00103-6 9817129