Cost-benefits of incorporating levosimendan into cardiac surgery practice: German base case.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-benefit of using levosimendan compared with dobutamine, in the perioperative treatment of patients undergoing cardiac surgery who require inotropic support. METHODS: A two-part Markov model was designed to simulate health-state transitions of patients undergoing cardiac surgery, and estimate the short- and long-term health benefits of treatment. Hospital length of stay (LOS), mortality, medication, and adverse events were key clinical- and cost-inputs. Cost-benefits were evaluated in terms of costs and bed stays within the German healthcare system. Drug prices were calculated from the German Drug Directory (€/2014) and published literature, with a 3% annual discount rate applied. The base case analysis was for a 1-year time horizon. RESULTS: The use of levosimendan vs dobutamine was associated with cost savings of €4787 per patient from the German hospital perspective due to reduced adverse events and shorter hospital LOS, leading to increased bed capacity and hospital revenue. LIMITATIONS: A pharmacoeconomic calculation for the specific situation of the German healthcare system that is based on international clinical trial carries a substantial risk of disregarding potentially relevant but unknown confounding factors (i.e., ICU-staffing, co-medications, standard-ICU care vs fast-tracking, etc.) that may either attenuate or increase the outcome pharmacoeconomic effects of a drug; however, since these conditions would also apply for patients treated with comparators, their net effects may not necessarily influence the conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: The use of levosimendan in patients undergoing cardiac surgery who require inotropic support appears to be cost-saving. The results of the analysis provide a strong rationale to run local clinical studies with pharmacoeconomic end-points which would allow a much more precise computation of the benefits of levosimendan.

Incremental cost-effectiveness of dobutamine stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients at intermediate risk for coronary artery disease.

AIMS: The effectiveness of stress cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) as a gatekeeper for coronary angiography (CA) has been established. Level five HTA studies according to the hierarchical model of diagnostic test evaluation are not available. METHODS: This cohort study included 1,158 consecutive patients (mean age 63 ± 11 years, 42 % women) presenting at our institution between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2004 with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) for an elective CA. The patients were assessed for eligibility and propensity score matching was applied to address selection bias regarding the patients' allocation to CMR or direct CA. Median patient follow-up was 7.9 years (95 % CI 7.8-8.0 years). The primary effect was calculated as relative survival difference. The cost unit calculation (per patient) at our institute was the source of costs. RESULTS: Survival was similar in CMR and CA (p = 0.139). Catheterizations ruling out CAD were significantly reduced by the CMR gate-keeper strategy. Patients with prior CMR had significantly lower costs at the initial hospital stay and at follow-up (CMR vs. CA, initial: 2,904 vs. 3,421, p = 0.018; follow-up: 2,045 vs. 3,318, p = 0.037). CMR was cost-effective in terms of a contribution of 12,466 per life year to cover a part of the CMR costs. CONCLUSION: Stress CMR prior to CA was saving 12,466 of hospital costs per life year. Lower costs at follow-up suggest sustained cost-effectiveness of the CMR-guided strategy.

Value of information: interim analysis of a randomized, controlled trial of goal-directed hemodynamic treatment for aged patients.

BACKGROUND: A randomized, controlled trial, intended to include 460 patients, is currently studying peroperative goal-directed hemodynamic treatment (GDHT) of aged hip-fracture patients. Interim efficacy analysis performed on the first 100 patients was statistically uncertain; thus, the trial is continuing in accordance with the trial protocol. This raised the present investigation's main question: Is it reasonable to continue to fund the trial to decrease uncertainty? To answer this question, a previously developed probabilistic cost-effectiveness model was used. That model depicts (1) a choice between routine fluid treatment and GDHT, given uncertainty of current evidence and (2) the monetary value of further data collection to decrease uncertainty. This monetary value, that is, the expected value of perfect information (EVPI), could be used to compare future research costs. Thus, the primary aim of the present investigation was to analyze EVPI of an ongoing trial with interim efficacy observed. METHODS: A previously developed probabilistic decision analytic cost-effectiveness model was employed to compare the routine fluid treatment to GDHT. Results from the interim analysis, published trials, the meta-analysis, and the registry data were used as model inputs. EVPI was predicted using (1) combined uncertainty of model inputs; (2) threshold value of society's willingness to pay for one, quality-adjusted life-year; and (3) estimated number of future patients exposed to choice between GDHT and routine fluid treatment during the expected lifetime of GDHT. RESULTS: If a decision to use GDHT were based on cost-effectiveness, then the decision would have a substantial degree of uncertainty. Assuming a 5-year lifetime of GDHT in clinical practice, the number of patients who would be subject to future decisions was 30,400. EVPI per patient would be €204 at a €20,000 threshold value of society's willingness to pay for one quality-adjusted life-year. Given a future population of 30,400 individuals, total EVPI would be €6.19 million. CONCLUSIONS: If future trial costs are below EVPI, further data collection is potentially cost-effective. When applying a cost-effectiveness model, statements such as 'further research is needed' are replaced with 'further research is cost-effective and 'further funding of a trial is justified'. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01141894.

Economic evaluation of levosimendan versus dobutamine for the treatment of acute heart failure in Italy.

INTRODUCTION: Inodilators are the first-choice class of drugs for the treatment of acute heart failure (AHF). Levosimendan is a relatively recent inodilatory agent, presenting superior outcomes in comparison with traditional inotropes. METHODS: An economic evaluation of levosimendan for the treatment of AHF in Italy was performed. In a retrospective study conducted on patients with AHF admitted to a teaching hospital in Rome, two groups were derived from an observational registry: 147 patients treated with levosimendan and 145 treated with dobutamine. Follow-up was at 1 year after treatment. In the reference study looked at in this paper, treatment with levosimendan reduced mean length of stay (LOS) by 1.5 days (P<0.05). Reduction in the rehospitalization rate was 6.7% (P<0.05). Mortality rate at 1 month was reduced by 4.8% (P<0.05). RESULTS: Based on the reference study, a cost analysis from the hospital perspective was carried out. The incremental cost of treatment with levosimendan (€697) was equivalent to the incremental savings (€694), the latter being obtained from the reduction in LOS (€508) and rehospitalization rate (€186). CONCLUSION: Despite the limitations of this study, and even neglecting all nonmonetary health gains as additional outcomes, levosimendan appears to be a competitive alternative compared with dobutamine for the treatment of AHF in the Italian hospital setting.

Stress CMR imaging observation unit in the emergency department reduces 1-year medical care costs in patients with acute chest pain: a randomized study for comparison with inpatient care.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the direct cost of medical care and clinical events during the first year after patients with intermediate risk acute chest pain were randomized to stress cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) observation unit (OU) testing versus inpatient care. BACKGROUND: In a recent study, randomization to OU-CMR reduced median index hospitalization cost compared with the cost of inpatient care in patients presenting to the emergency department with intermediate risk acute chest pain. METHODS: Emergency department patients with intermediate risk chest pain were randomized to OU-CMR (OU care, cardiac markers, stress CMR) or inpatient care (admission, care per admitting provider). This analysis reports the direct cost of cardiac-related care and clinical outcomes (myocardial infarction, revascularization, cardiovascular death) during the first year of follow-up subsequent to discharge. Consistent with health economics literature, provider cost was calculated from work-related relative value units using the Medicare conversion factor; facility charges were converted to cost using departmental-specific cost-to-charge ratios. Linear models were used to compare cost accumulation among study groups. RESULTS: We included 109 randomized subjects in this analysis (52 OU-CMR, 57 inpatient care). The median age was 56 years; baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. At 1 year, 6% of OU-CMR and 9% of inpatient care participants experienced a major cardiac event (p = 0.72) with 1 patient in each group experiencing a cardiac event after discharge. First-year cardiac-related costs were significantly lower for participants randomized to OU-CMR than for participants receiving inpatient care (geometric mean = $3,101 vs. $4,742 including the index visit [p = 0.004] and $29 vs. $152 following discharge [p = 0.012]). During the year following randomization, 6% of OU-CMR and 9% of inpatient care participants experienced a major cardiac event (p = 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: An OU-CMR strategy reduces cardiac-related costs of medical care during the index visit and over the first year subsequent to discharge, without an observed increase in major cardiac events. (Cost Comparison of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging [MRI] Use in Emergency Department [ED] Patients With Chest Pain; NCT00678639).

Cost-effectiveness of levosimendan in patients with acute heart failure.

Heart failure is a major public health problem because of its high prevalence and impact on mortality, morbidity, quality of life, and social costs. The aim of this analysis was to estimate the effects of the novel inodilator levosimendan versus standard inotropic therapy (ST) of dobutamine in acute heart failure. A study population of 292 patients with acute heart failure was derived from an observational registry of patients referred to our department. Of these, 147 patients received iv levosimendan (0.05-0.1 µg·kg·min for 24 hours), and 145 patients were treated with ST. Duration of hospitalization, survival at 1 month, and the rehospitalization rate during the year after the index hospitalization were evaluated. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. The mean length of hospitalization was 12.08 and 13.57 days in the levosimendan and ST groups, respectively (P < 0.05). Rehospitalization rates were lower in the levosimendan group at 6 months (1.44% vs. 2.3%; P < 0.05) and 12 months (7.6% vs. 14.3%; P < 0.05). Mortality rate at 1 month was 2.1% versus 6.9% in the levosimendan and ST groups, respectively (P < 0.05). The per-capita cost of treatment with levosimendan was €78.86 higher than that with ST during the first hospitalization but €280.22 lower when the rehospitalization rate was considered.

Comparison of the initial hospitalization costs between the patients treated with dobutamine and the patients treated with amrinone for acute decompensated heart failure in a Japanese institute.

OBJECTIVES: Phosphodiesterase (PDE) III inhibitor therapy is effective for treatment of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). Nevertheless, this drug is expensive than conventional inotropic agent dobutamine. We compared total medication costs of the patients treated with PDE III inhibitor amrinone therapy to that of the patients treated with conventional dobutamine therapy during initial hospitalization. METHODS: We analyzed 160 consecutive patients with ADHF admitted to our hospital. Shock, dehydration, severe infection, multiple organ failure, and mild heart failure (New York Heart Association class IIs) were not eligible for the study. Ninety-seven patients were divided into two groups: 1) DOB group treated with dobutamine therapy; and 2) AMR group treated with amrinone therapy. Total medication costs and cost for hospital room charge were calculated based on their usage during the initial hospitalization for each patient. Group comparison was done between the DOB and AMR groups. RESULTS: Length of stay was longer in the DOB group than in the AMR group. Mean calculated cost of intravenous drugs was higher in the DOB group (173,186 +/- 239,147 yen) than in the AMR group (63,145 +/- 47,223 yen, P < 0.05). Total medication costs were higher in the DOB group than in the AMR group. Cost for hospital room charge was higher in the DOB group than in the AMR group. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of ADHF, appropriate therapy even with expensive drugs makes total medication costs less expensive comparing with conventional therapy with cheaper drugs during initial hospitalization.

The costs of treating acute heart failure: an economic analysis of the SURVIVE trial.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental cost per life year gained with levosimendan relative to dobutamine in treatment of acute heart failure based on the Survival of Patients with Acute Heart Failure in Need of Intravenous Inotropic Support (SURVIVE) trial. METHODS: SURVIVE enrolled 1,327 patients (levosimendan 664, dobutamine 663) from nine nations with 180-day survival from date of randomisation as the primary endpoint. Hospital resource utilisation was determined via clinical case reports. Unit costs were derived from hospital payment schedules for France, Germany and the UK, and represent a third-party payer perspective. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for a subset of the SURVIVE patient population selected in accordance with current levosimendan labeling. RESULTS: Mortality in the levosimendan group was 26 versus 28% for dobutamine (hazard ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.74-1.13, p=0.40). Initial hospitalisation length of stay was identical (levosimendan 14.4, dobutamine 14.5, p=0.98). Slightly lower rates of readmission were observed for levosimendan relative to dobutamine at 31 (p=0.13) and 180 days (p=0.23). Mean costs excluding study drug were equivalent for the index admission (levosimendan euro5,060, dobutamine euro4,952; p=0.91) and complete episode (levosimendan euro5,396, dobutamine euro5,275; p=0.93). CONCLUSION: At an acquisition cost of euro600 per vial, there is at least 50% likelihood that levosimendan is cost effective relative to dobutamine if willingness to pay is equal to or greater than euro15,000 per life year gained.

Pharmacoeconomic modeling of nesiritide versus dobutamine for decompensated heart failure.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To model the cost-effectiveness of nesiritide compared with dobutamine in patients with decompensated heart failure. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A decision tree model was derived from randomized clinical trial data and data from a previously published economic study. Four cost-effectiveness analyses were performed: analysis 1 -- full probabilistic analysis, repeatedly sampled probabilities for 6-month mortality and hospital readmission from distributions based on 95% confidence intervals (CIs); analysis 2 -- best-case nesiritide analysis, used the limiting values of the 95% CI favorable to nesiritide; analysis 3 -- best-case dobutamine analysis, used the limiting values of the 95% CI favorable to dobutamine; and analysis 4 -- replicated the previously published cost-effectiveness study and served as a methodologic control. Fifty-one consecutive Monte Carlo simulations for cohorts of 1000 hypothetical patients were performed for each analysis. Incremental cost, incremental effectiveness, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for nesiritide versus dobutamine. Analysis 1 showed a mean ICER of 767 US dollars/life-year gained for nesiritide versus dobutamine (incremental cost 251 US dollars +/- 290 US dollars, incremental effectiveness 0.33 +/- 0.22 yr). The 95% confidence region surrounding this point estimate spanned all four quadrants of the incremental cost-effectiveness scatterplot, suggesting inconclusive results. Nesiritide was the dominant treatment strategy in analysis 2 (incremental cost -734 US dollars+/- 106 US dollars, incremental effectiveness 1.19 +/- 0.07 yrs), whereas dobutamine was dominant in analysis 3 (incremental cost 1242 +/- 73 US dollars, incremental effectiveness -0.57 +/- 0.05 yr). Analysis 4 was comparable to the previously published cost-effectiveness analysis (incremental cost -77 +/- 87 US dollars, incremental effectiveness 0.48 +/- 0.05 yr). CONCLUSIONS: Based on available randomized clinical trial data, nesiritide did not exhibit robust economic superiority over dobutamine. When incorporating the uncertainty (i.e., 95% CIs) in clinical effectiveness as reported in available clinical trial data into the economic analysis, either nesiritide or dobutamine may be the dominant treatment (i.e., more effective at lower cost) for the studied population. Economic analyses of nesiritide and any comparator must account for uncertainty in estimates of cost as well as in clinical effectiveness.

Increased cost effectiveness with nesiritide vs. milrinone or dobutamine in the treatment of acute decompensated heart failure.

Despite recent advances in the treatment of patients with acute decompensated heart failure, the cost of treatment for such patients remains considerable. IV diuretics, vasodilators, and positive inotropic agents are commonly prescribed. A retrospective data analysis was conducted to determine the cost effectiveness of nesiritide compared with milrinone and dobutamine administered in a hospital setting during episodes of acute decompensated heart failure. Nesiritide-treated patients demonstrated a significantly lower overall hospital length of stay, intensive care unit length of stay, and average cost per case compared with dobutamine or milrinone. Although the acquisition cost of nesiritide was higher than that of milrinone and dobutamine, nesiritide was a more cost-effective treatment option for patients with acute decompensated heart failure in this study.

[Cost analysis of the treatment of acute decompensated heart failure. Levosimendan versus dobutamine]. / Análise de custos do tratamento de episódios de descompensação aguda de insuficiência cardíaca. Levosimendan versus dobutamina.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the treatment with levosimendan is more expensive than the usual one with dobutamine, since price of medications does not usually represent the greatest expense in the treatment of cardiac decompensation. METHODS: The cost of treatment of 18 inpatients with cardiac decompensation, 9 of which treated with dobutamine (dobuta group) and 9 with levosimendan (levo group), was compared. Groups were similar concerning age, sex, functional class and cardiac function. RESULTS: Treatment costs were similar for both groups. In the levo group, the costs with the drug were higher than in the dobuta group, but those related to the length of stay in intensive care unit and to the material used during admission were lower. Levo-drug: R$ 5,414.00; material: R$ 399.90; hospital daily rates: R$ 5,061.20; professional honorarium: R$ 3,241.80; total costs: R$ 14,117.00. Dobuta-drug: R$ 2,320.10; materials: R$ 1,665.70; hospital daily rates: R$ 6,261.90; professional honorarium: R$ 3,894.30; total costs: R$ 14,142.00. CONCLUSION: Despite the higher price of levosimendan, the global cost of the treatment was similar for patients who were treated either with dobutamine or levosimendan. Patients who were treated with levosimendan had a shorter length of stay in intensive care unit.

Análise de custos do tratamento de episódios de descompensacão aguda de insuficiência cardíaca: levosimendan versus dobutamina / Cost analysis of the treatment of acute decompensated heart failure: levosimendan versus dobutamine

OBJETIVO: Verificar se o tratamento com levosimendan seria mais dispendioso que o usual com dobutamina, uma vez que o preco dos medicamentos não representa a maior despesa no tratamento da descompensacão cardíaca. MÉTODOS: Comparou-se o custo do tratamento de 18 pacientes hospitalizados devido a descompensacão cardíaca, 9 tratados com dobutamina (grupo dobuta) e 9 com levosimendan (grupo levo). Os grupos foram semelhantes quanto à idade, sexo, classe funcional e funcão cardíaca. RESULTADOS: O custo do tratamento foi semelhante para os dois grupos. No grupo levo as despesas com medicamentos foram maiores, mas as relativas ao período de terapia intensiva e do material empregado foram menores. Levo - medicamentos: R$ 5.414,00; materiais: R$ 399,90; diárias hospitalares: R$ 5.061,20; servicos profissionais: R$ 3.241,80; final: R$ 14.117,00. Dobuta - medicamentos: R$ 2.320,10; materiais: R$ 1.665,70; diárias hospitalares: R$ 6.261,90; servicos profissionais: R$ 3.894,30; final: R$ 14.142,00. CONCLUSAO: Apesar do preco mais elevado da droga, o custo global do tratamento foi semelhante para os pacientes tratados com dobutamina ou levosimendan. O paciente tratado com levosimendan permaneceu menos tempo em terapia intensiva.

Economic implications of nesiritide versus dobutamine in the treatment of patients with acutely decompensated congestive heart failure.

Pooled data from trials comparing nesiritide with dobutamine for treatment of acute decompensated congestive heart failure were combined with national hospital cost data in an economic model. Results indicate that the acquisition cost of nesiritide is fully offset by decreased hospital costs.

Morbidity and mortality of UNOS status 1B cardiac transplant candidates at home.

BACKGROUND: On January 20, 1999, UNOS listing regulations changed, allowing stable patients on inotropic support (Status IB) to be discharged home until cardiac transplant. The outcome, morbidity and cost savings of this new strategy has not been evaluated. METHODS: From 1/20/99 through 1/1/01, 155 patients were classified as UNOS Status 1B at our institution; 64 patients were never discharged and 91 were discharged home. Criteria for discharge were hemodynamic stability on low-dose, single-agent parenteral inotropic infusion, defined as dobutamine at a dose <7.5 microg/kg/min or milrinone <0.5 microg/kg/min. Data on re-admissions were collected prospectively. The frequency of complex ventricular arrhythmias was evaluated in a sub-group discharged with external or internal cardiodefibrillators (n = 38). RESULTS: Total Status I time to transplant for the 91 discharged patients was 139 +/- 91 days, with 87 +/- 67 days spent at home. Inpatient time to transplant was still high, with a mean of 51 +/- 45 days. The in-hospital time was comparable to that of the 64 patients who were never discharged (51 +/- 41 days). Fifty-nine percent of discharged patients were re-admitted, with 37% of patients requiring more than 1 admission. Sixty-six percent of admissions were for worsening heart failure (CHF), and 34% for infection or occlusion of the indwelling intravenous line. No significant arrhythmic events were recorded in the 38 patients who had internal or external cardiodefibrillators. Two patients died suddenly at home. One patient had declined to wear the external cardiodefibrillator. The other patient was not wearing the defibrillator at the time of the event, and in 634 hours of previous monitoring he had had no events. CONCLUSIONS: In UNOS Status 1B patients awaiting cardiac transplant on home inotropic therapy, mortality remains low but the re-admission rate was high. There appeared to be a low incidence of complex ventricular arrhythmias.

Comparison of dobutamine versus milrinone therapy in hospitalized patients awaiting cardiac transplantation: a prospective, randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The use of dobutamine or milrinone for inotropic support in patients with heart failure awaiting cardiac transplantation is largely arbitrary and based on institutional preference. The costs and effectiveness of these drugs have yet to be compared in a prospective, randomized study. METHODS: We compared clinical outcomes and costs associated with the use of dobutamine or milrinone in 36 hospitalized patients awaiting cardiac transplantation. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either dobutamine or milrinone at the time of initial hospitalization and were followed until death, transplantation, or placement of mechanical cardiac support (intra-aortic balloon pump or left ventricular assist device). RESULTS: Seventeen patients were randomly assigned to receive dobutamine (mean dose 4.1 +/- 1.4 microg/kg/min) and 19 patients received milrinone (mean dose 0.39 +/- 1.0 microg/kg/min). Therapy lasted 50 +/- 46 days for those in the dobutamine group and 63 +/- 45 days in the milrinone group. We did not detect differences between the 2 groups in right heart hemodynamics, death, need for additional vasodilator/inotropic therapy, or need for mechanical cardiac support before transplantation. Ventricular arrhythmias requiring increased antiarrhythmic therapy occurred frequently in both groups. Total acquisition cost of milrinone was significantly higher than that of dobutamine (16,270 dollars +/- 1334 vs 380 dollars +/- 533 P <.00001). CONCLUSIONS: Both dobutamine and milrinone can be used successfully as pharmacologic therapy for a bridge to heart transplantation. Despite similar clinical outcomes, treatment with milrinone incurs greater cost.

Intravenous levosimendan treatment is cost-effective compared with dobutamine in severe low-output heart failure: an analysis based on the international LIDO trial.

BACKGROUND: Levosimendan, a novel calcium sensitiser, improves cardiac performance and symptoms without increasing oxygen consumption, and decreases the mortality of patients with low-output heart failure. AIMS: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of intravenous treatment with levosimendan compared with dobutamine in patients with severe low-output heart failure. METHODS: This economic evaluation was based on a European clinical trial (LIDO), in which 203 patients with severe heart failure randomly received a 24 h infusion with either levosimendan or dobutamine. Survival and resource utilisation data were collected for 6 months; survival was extrapolated assuming a mean additional lifetime of 3 years based on data from the Cooperative North Scandinavian Enalapril Survival Study trial. Costs were based on study drug usage and hospitalisation in the 6-month follow-up. A sensitivity analysis on dosage of drug and duration of survival was performed. RESULTS: The mean survival over 6 months was 157+/-52 days in the levosimendan group and 139+/-64 days in the dobutamine group (P<0.01). When extrapolated up to 3 years, the gain in life expectancy was estimated at 0.35 years (discounted at 3%). Levosimendan increased the mean cost per patient by 1108, which was entirely due to the cost of the study drug. The incremental cost per life-year saved (LYS) was 3205 at the European level; in the individual countries the cost per LYS ranged between 3091 and 3331. The result was robust in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Although the patients in the levosimendan group were alive for more days and thus at risk of hospitalisation for longer, there was no increase in hospitalisation or hospitalisation costs with levosimendan treatment. The cost per LYS using levosimendan compares favourably with other cost-effectiveness analyses in cardiology.

Low utility of dobutamine stress echocardiograms in the preoperative evaluation of patients scheduled for noncardiac surgery.

UNLABELLED: In this study, we examined the utility of preoperative dobutamine stress echocardiograms (DSE) obtained for 85 patients in accordance with guidelines published by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA). The medical record of each patient was reviewed to identify the clinical criteria that indicated the need for a DSE, the DSE results, therapeutic interventions rendered as a result of the DSE, and any perioperative cardiac morbidity. The DSE was positive for inducible ischemia in 4 patients (4.7%), negative in 74 (87.1%), and nondiagnostic in 7 (8.2%). DSEs that were obtained for 48 patients because of a history of diabetes mellitus, mild angina, or "minor clinical predictors" produced only negative results. Of the four patients with positive DSE results, three underwent coronary angiography, and one of those three underwent bypass grafting before surgery. An additional 29 patients received a preoperative DSE but were excluded from the study because the criteria for ordering the DSE did not meet the ACC/AHA guidelines. No patient had any perioperative morbidity related to myocardial ischemia. The total patient charge for the 85 DSEs obtained at our institution was US$104,635. Use of the ACC/AHA guidelines for preoperative DSEs does not appear to be cost-effective. However, the current algorithm could be significantly improved by altering the criteria for obtaining preoperative DSEs. IMPLICATIONS: This study was a retrospective review of 85 patient charts that found a low cost-effectiveness of using American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for obtaining preoperative dobutamine stress echocardiograms. Suggested modifications of these guidelines should improve their specificity with no loss in sensitivity.

Ready-to-use injection preparations versus conventional reconstituted admixtures: economic evaluation in a real-life setting.

OBJECTIVE: To measure, in a real-life setting, the benefits of using ready-to-use (RTU) injection preparations compared with conventional reconstituted admixtures (Admix) in terms of cost savings. DESIGN AND PERSPECTIVE: An economic model was developed, based on a randomised study. The perspective of the economic evaluation was that of the hospital administration. A microcosting approach was used to determine costs. SETTING: Department of Cardiac Surgery at the Charleroi University Hospital in Belgium. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-eight patients undergoing cardiac surgery under cardiopulmonary bypass were randomised to Admix dobutamine or to the RTU dobutamine group and were followed up during 24 hours after initiation of dobutamine therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: Nursing time was reduced by 32% in the RTU group compared with the Admix group. Material cost was also reduced and the overall cost savings in the RTU group amounted to a 60% reduction in the cost of the conventional Admix process (p<0.001). When drug cost was included in the equation, cost savings varied from 1.60 euros (EUR) to EUR21.40 per patient depending on dosage. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of safety and efficacy. A user satisfaction survey showed that medical staff especially welcomed improved ease of preparation and potential for prevention of errors and risks of handling. CONCLUSION: This study confirmed the potential for RTU forms to reduce nursing time associated with preparation and administration of intravenous admixtures and to enable overall cost savings.

Effect of nesiritide versus dobutamine on short-term outcomes in the treatment of patients with acutely decompensated heart failure.

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to determine whether nesiritide, administered for acute decompensated congestive heart failure (CHF), affects healthcare costs by hospital length of stay (LOS), readmissions and short-term mortality, compared to dobutamine. BACKGROUND: Dobutamine is a commonly used inotropic treatment for CHF. Although dobutamine may have favorable hemodynamic and symptomatic effects, its use may be associated with side effects such as tachycardia, cardiac arrhythmias and myocardial ischemia. Nesiritide (B-type natriuretic peptide) is a new intravenous (IV) drug that produces hemodynamic and symptomatic improvement through balanced vasodilatory effects, neurohormonal suppression and enhanced natriuresis and diuresis. METHODS: From an open-label randomized study of nesiritide versus standard care (SC) in patients with CHF requiring hospitalization, we compared short-term outcome data from patients given nesiritide (0.015 or 0.03 microg/kg per min) with a subgroup of SC patients given dobutamine. A total of 261 patients are included in this analysis. RESULTS: Compared to dobutamine, both nesiritide doses were administered for a shorter total duration (p < 0.001), and the total duration of all IV vasoactive therapy (including study drug) was also shorter (p less-than-or-equal 0.012). Although there was no difference in LOS, there was a trend toward decreased readmissions in the two nesiritide groups (8% and 11%, respectively, vs. 20% in the dobutamine group). Six-month mortality was lower in the nesiritide groups. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of decompensated CHF with nesiritide may lead to lower healthcare costs and reduced mortality compared to treatment with dobutamine.