Potential cost-effectiveness of prophylactic use of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator or amiodarone after myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have shown that implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) improve survival in patients with sustained ventricular arrhythmias. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy necessary to make prophylactic ICD or amiodarone therapy cost-effective in patients with myocardial infarction. DESIGN: Markov model-based cost utility analysis. DATA SOURCES: Survival, cardiac death, and inpatient costs were estimated on the basis of the Myocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention registry. Other data were derived from the literature. TARGET POPULATION: Patients with past myocardial infarction who did not have sustained ventricular arrhythmia. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTIONS: ICD or amiodarone compared with no treatment. OUTCOME MEASURES: Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, number needed to treat, and incremental cost-effectiveness. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Compared with no treatment, ICD use led to the greatest QALYs and the highest expenditures. Amiodarone use resulted in intermediate QALYs and costs. To obtain acceptable cost-effectiveness thresholds (

The use of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: data from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2.

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains the leading cause of death in patients hospitalized with AMI. Although several studies have demonstrated the importance of establishing and maintaining a patent infarct-related artery, it remains unclear as to whether intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) provides incremental benefit to reperfusion therapy. The purpose of this study was to determine whether IABP use is associated with lower in-hospital mortality rates in patients with AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock in a large AMI registry. METHODS: We evaluated patients participating in the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2 who had cardiogenic shock at initial examination or in whom cardiogenic shock developed during hospitalization (n = 23,180). RESULTS: The mean age of patients in the study was 72 years, 54% were men, and the majority were white. The overall mortality rate in all patients who had cardiogenic shock or in whom cardiogenic shock developed was 70%. IABP was used in 7268 (31%) patients. IABP use was associated with a significant reduction in mortality rates in patients who received thrombolytic therapy (67% vs 49%) but was not associated with any benefit in patients treated with primary angioplasty (45% vs 47%). In a multivariate model, the use of IABP in conjunction with thrombolytic therapy decreased the odds of death by 18% (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.72 to 0.93). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock may have substantial benefit from IABP when used in combination with thrombolytic therapy.

Use of lipid-lowering medications at discharge in patients with acute myocardial infarction: data from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 3.

BACKGROUND: The present study aimed to assess use of lipid-lowering medication at discharge in a current national sample of patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction and to evaluate factors associated with prescribing patterns. METHODS AND RESULTS: Demographic, procedural, and discharge medication data were collected from 138 001 patients with acute myocardial infarction discharged from 1470 US hospitals participating in the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 3 from July 1998 to June 1999. Lipid-lowering medications were part of the discharge regimen in 31. 7%. Among patients with prior history of CAD, revascularization, or diabetes, less than one half of the patients were discharged on treatment. In multivariate analysis, factors independently related to lipid-lowering use included history of hypercholesterolemia (odds ratio [OR] 4.93; 95% CI 4.79 to 5.07), cardiac catheterization during hospitalization (OR 1.29; 95% CI 1.24 to 1.34), care provided at a teaching hospital, (OR 1.26; 95% CI 1.22 to 1.32), use of ss-blocker (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.39 to 1.48), and smoking cessation counseling (OR 1.51; 95% CI 1.44 to 1.59). Lipid-lowering medications were given less often to patients who were older (65 to 74 versus <55 years of age; OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.78 to 0.86), those with a history of hypertension (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.89 to 0.95), and those undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery (OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of current practice patterns for the use of lipid-lowering medications in patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction reveals that a significant proportion of high-risk patients did not receive treatment at time of discharge.

Long-term outcome in acute myocardial infarction patients admitted to hospitals with and without on-site cardiac catheterization facilities. MITI Investigators. Myocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have documented the strong association between availability of on-site cardiac catheterization facilities and increased use of coronary angiography in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Although these studies have shown little influence of the availability of catheterization labs on hospital mortality, no long-term follow-up has been reported. METHODS AND RESULTS: From a cohort of 12,331 AMI patients admitted to 19 Seattle area hospitals, we compared long-term outcome in 7985 patients admitted to hospitals with and 4346 patients admitted to hospitals without on-site catheterization labs. During the index hospitalization, patients admitted to hospitals with on-site catheterization were more likely to undergo coronary angiography (67.1% versus 39.3%, P<.0001), coronary angioplasty (32.5% versus 13.2%, P<.0001), or coronary bypass surgery (12.5% versus 9.5%, P<.0001). At 3-year follow-up, patients admitted to hospitals with on-site catheterization labs were more likely to undergo postdischarge angiography (19.2% versus 15.2%, P=.0001) and coronary angioplasty (11.6% versus 8.2%, P<.0001). This was associated with approximately $2500.00 per patient in higher cumulative costs. Despite this higher rate of procedure use, there was no association between admission to a hospital with on-site catheterization facilities and lower long-term mortality (multivariate hazard ratio, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.1., the hazard being associated with admission to hospitals with on-site catheterization facilities). CONCLUSIONS: In an urban area with unconstrained patient transfer mechanisms and high overall cardiac procedure use rates, AMI patients admitted to hospitals without on-site catheterization facilities were managed with fewer procedures during hospitalization and follow-up. This more conservative treatment approach was not associated with any observed increase in long-term mortality.

A comparison of thrombolytic therapy with primary coronary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. Myocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention Investigators.

BACKGROUND: Several relatively small randomized trials have shown that primary angioplasty results in a better short-term outcome than thrombolytic therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction. These results, however, have not been duplicated other than in investigational trials. METHODS: We compared mortality during hospitalization and long-term mortality, as well as the use of resources, among 1050 patients in a primary-angioplasty group and 2095 patients in a thrombolytic-therapy group. Patients were selected from the Myocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention Project Registry cohort of 12,331 consecutive patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction to 19 Seattle hospitals between 1988 and 1994. Because of the potential for selection bias, several subgroup analyses were performed that included patients eligible for thrombolysis, high-risk patients, and patients in the primary-angioplasty group who were treated at hospitals with high volumes of angioplasty. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in mortality during hospitalization or long-term follow-up between patients in the thrombolytic-therapy group and those in the primary-angioplasty group (mortality during hospitalization, 5.6 percent and 5.5 percent, respectively; P=0.93; adjusted hazard ratio for the risk of death within three years after primary angioplasty, 0.95; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.8 to 1.2). There was also no significant difference in mortality between high-risk subgroups of patients in the two treatment groups. The rates of procedures and costs were lower among patients in the thrombolytic-therapy group both at the time of hospital discharge and after three years of follow-up (30 percent fewer coronary angiograms, 15 percent fewer coronary angioplasties, and 13 percent lower costs after three years of follow-up). CONCLUSIONS: In a community setting, we observed no benefit in terms of either mortality or the use of resources with a strategy of primary angioplasty rather than thrombolytic therapy in a large cohort of patients with acute myocardial infarction.

Effect of completeness of revascularization on long-term outcome of patients with three-vessel disease undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery. A report from the Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS) Registry.

BACKGROUND: Complete revascularization after coronary artery bypass surgery is a logical goal and improves symptomatic outcome and survival. However, the impact of complete revascularization in patients with three-vessel coronary disease with varying severities of angina and left ventricular dysfunction has not been clearly defined. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study was performed as a retrospective analysis of 3,372 nonrandomized surgical patients from the Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS) Registry who had three-vessel coronary disease. Group 1 (894 patients) had class I or II angina (Canadian Cardiovascular Society criteria) and group 2 (2,478 patients) had class III or IV angina. In group 1, adjusted cumulative 4-year survivals according to the number of vessels bypassed were 85% (one vessel), 94% (two vessels), 96% (three vessels), and 96% (more than three vessels) (log rank, p = 0.022). Adjusted event-free survival (death, myocardial infarction, definite angina, or reoperation) was not influenced by the number of vessels bypassed, nor was the anginal status among patients remaining alive after 5 years. In group 2, adjusted cumulative 5-year survivals were 78% (one vessel), 85% (two vessels), 90% (three vessels), and 87% (more than three vessels) (log rank, p = 0.074). Adjusted event-free survivals after 6 years were 23% (one vessel), 23% (two vessels), 29% (three vessels), and 31% (more than three vessels) (p = 0.025); at 5 years, those with more complete revascularization were more likely to be asymptomatic or free of severe angina. Among group 2 patients with ejection fractions less than 0.35, 6-year survival was 69% for those with grafts to three or more vessels versus 45% for those with grafts to two vessels (p = 0.04). Placing grafts to three or more vessels was independently associated with improved survival and event-free survival in group 2 but not group 1 patients. The case-fatality rates among 529 patients experiencing a myocardial infarction during follow-up was significantly higher for patients with less complete revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: Complete revascularization (grafts to three or more vessels) in patients with three-vessel coronary disease appears to most benefit those with severe angina and left ventricular dysfunction.