Incremental cost-effectiveness of exercise echocardiography vs. SPECT imaging for the evaluation of stable chest pain

Aims Technological advances in cardiac imaging have led to dramatic increases in test utilization and consumption of a growing proportion of cardiovascular healthcare costs. The opportunity costs of strategies favouring exercise echocardiography or SPECT imaging have been incompletely evaluated. Methods and results We examined prognosis and cost-effectiveness of exercise echocardiography (n=4884) vs. SPECT (n=4637) imaging in stable, intermediate risk, chest pain patients. Ischaemia extent was defined as the number of vascular territories with echocardiographic wall motion or SPECT perfusion abnormalities. Cox proportional hazard models were employed to assess time to cardiac death or myocardial infarction (MI). Total cardiovascular costs were summed (discounted and inflation-corrected) throughout follow-up. A cost-effectiveness ratio = 2% annual event risk), SPECT ischaemia was associated with earlier and greater utilization of coronary revascularization (P < 0.0001) resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $32 381/LYS. Conclusion Health care policies aimed at allocating limited resources can be effectively guided by applying clinical and economic outcomes evidence. A strategy aimed at cost-effective testing would support using echocardiography in low-risk patients with suspected coronary disease, whereas those higher risk patients benefit from referral to SPECT imaging.

Using a clinical pathway and education to reduce inappropriate prescribing of enoxaparin in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a controlled study

Aims: To evaluate efficacy of a pathway-based quality improvement intervention on appropriate prescribing of the low molecular weight heparin, enoxaparin, in patients with varying risk categories of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods: Rates of enoxaparin use retrospectively evaluated before and after pathway implementation at an intervention hospital were compared to concurrent control patients at a control hospital; both were community hospitals in south-east Queensland. The study population was a group of randomly selected patients (n = 439) admitted to study hospitals with a discharge diagnosis of chest pain, angina, or myocardial infarction, and stratified into high, intermediate, low-risk ACS or non-cardiac chest pain: 146 intervention patients (September-November 2003), 147 historical controls (August-December 2001) at the intervention hospital; 146 concurrent controls (September-November 2003) at the control hospital. Interventions were active implementation of a user-modified clinical pathway coupled with an iterative education programme to medical staff versus passive distribution of a similar pathway without user modification or targeted education. Outcome measures were rates of appropriate enoxaparin use in high-risk ACS patients and rates of inappropriate use in intermediate and low-risk patients. Results: Appropriate use of enoxaparin in high-risk ACS patients was above 90% in all patient groups. Inappropriate use of enoxaparin was significantly reduced as a result of pathway use in intermediate risk (9% intervention patients vs 75% historical controls vs 45% concurrent controls) and low-risk patients (9% vs 62% vs 41%; P < 0.001 for all comparisons). Pathway use was associated with a 3.5-fold (95% CI: 1.3-9.1; P = 0.012) increase in appropriate use of enoxaparin across all patient groups. Conclusion: Active implementation of an acute chest pain pathway combined with continuous education reduced inappropriate use of enoxaparin in patients presenting with intermediate or low-risk ACS.

Pharmacological treatment and perceived health status during 1-year follow up in patients diagnosed with coronary artery disease, but ineligible for revascularization. Results from the Euro Heart Survey on Coronary Revascularization

Background It has been recognized that a clinically significant portion of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) continue to experience anginal and other related symptoms that are refractory to the combination of medical therapy and revascularization. The Euro Heart Survey on Revascularization (EHSCR) provided an opportunity to assess pharmacological treatment and outcome in patients with proven CAD who were ineligible for revascularization. Methods We performed a secondary analysis of EHS-CR data. After excluding patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and those in whom revascularization was not indicated, 4409 patients remained in the analyses. We selected two groups: (1) patients in whom revascularization was the preferred treatment option (n = 3777, 86%), and (2) patients who were considered ineligible for revascularization (n = 632, 14%). Results Patient ineligible for revascularization had a worse risk profile, more often had a total occlusion (59% vs. 37%, p < 0.001), were treated more often with ACE-inhibitors (65% vs. 55%, p < 0.001) but less likely with aspirin (83% vs. 88%, p < 0.001). Overall, they had higher case-fatality at 1-year (7.0% vs. 3.7%, p < 0.001). Regarding self-perceived health status, measured via the EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D) questionnaire, these same patients reported more problems on all dimensions of the EQ-5D. Furthermore, in the revascularization group we observed an increase between discharge and 1-year follow up (utility score from 0.85 to 1.00) whereas patients ineligible for revascularization did not improve over time (utility score remained 0.80) Conclusion In this large cohort of European patients with CAD, those considered ineligible for revascularization had more co-morbidities and risk factors, and scored worse on self-perceived health status as compared to revascularized patients in the revascularization group. With the exception of ACE-inhibitors and aspirin, there were no major differences regarding drug treatment between the two groups. Given these clinically significant observations, there appears to be a role for nurse-led, multidisciplinary, rehabilitation teams that target clinically vulnerable patients whose symptoms remain refractory to standard medical care.