Cost-minimization analysis of three decision strategies for cardiac revascularization : results of the "suspected CAD"cohort of the european cardiovascular magnetic resonance registry.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease (CAD) continues to be one of the top public health burden. Perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is generally accepted to detect CAD, while data on its cost effectiveness are scarce. Therefore, the goal of the study was to compare the costs of a CMR-guided strategy vs two invasive strategies in a large CMR registry. METHODS: In 3'647 patients with suspected CAD of the EuroCMR-registry (59 centers/18 countries) costs were calculated for diagnostic examinations (CMR, X-ray coronary angiography (CXA) with/without FFR), revascularizations, and complications during a 1-year follow-up. Patients with ischemia-positive CMR underwent an invasive CXA and revascularization at the discretion of the treating physician (=CMR + CXA-strategy). In the hypothetical invasive arm, costs were calculated for an initial CXA and a FFR in vessels with ≥50 % stenoses (=CXA + FFR-strategy) and the same proportion of revascularizations and complications were applied as in the CMR + CXA-strategy. In the CXA-only strategy, costs included those for CXA and for revascularizations of all ≥50 % stenoses. To calculate the proportion of patients with ≥50 % stenoses, the stenosis-FFR relationship from the literature was used. Costs of the three strategies were determined based on a third payer perspective in 4 healthcare systems. RESULTS: Revascularizations were performed in 6.2 %, 4.5 %, and 12.9 % of all patients, patients with atypical chest pain (n = 1'786), and typical angina (n = 582), respectively; whereas complications (=all-cause death and non-fatal infarction) occurred in 1.3 %, 1.1 %, and 1.5 %, respectively. The CMR + CXA-strategy reduced costs by 14 %, 34 %, 27 %, and 24 % in the German, UK, Swiss, and US context, respectively, when compared to the CXA + FFR-strategy; and by 59 %, 52 %, 61 % and 71 %, respectively, versus the CXA-only strategy. In patients with typical angina, cost savings by CMR + CXA vs CXA + FFR were minimal in the German (2.3 %), intermediate in the US and Swiss (11.6 % and 12.8 %, respectively), and remained substantial in the UK (18.9 %) systems. Sensitivity analyses proved the robustness of results. CONCLUSIONS: A CMR + CXA-strategy for patients with suspected CAD provides substantial cost reduction compared to a hypothetical CXA + FFR-strategy in patients with low to intermediate disease prevalence. However, in the subgroup of patients with typical angina, cost savings were only minimal to moderate.

Cost-benefit analysis of an enhanced recovery protocol for pancreaticoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programmes have been shown to decrease complications and hospital stay. The cost-effectiveness of such programmes has been demonstrated for colorectal surgery. This study aimed to assess the economic outcomes of a standard ERAS programme for pancreaticoduodenectomy. METHODS: ERAS for pancreaticoduodenectomy was implemented in October 2012. All consecutive patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy until October 2014 were recorded. This group was compared in terms of costs with a cohort of consecutive patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy between January 2010 and October 2012, before ERAS implementation. Preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative real costs were collected for each patient via the hospital administration. A bootstrap independent t test was used for comparison. ERAS-specific costs were integrated into the model. RESULTS: The groups were well matched in terms of demographic and surgical details. The overall complication rate was 68 per cent (50 of 74 patients) and 82 per cent (71 of 87 patients) in the ERAS and pre-ERAS groups respectively (P = 0·046). Median hospital stay was lower in the ERAS group (15 versus 19 days; P = 0·029). ERAS-specific costs were euro922 per patient. Mean total costs were euro56 083 per patient in the ERAS group and euro63 821 per patient in the pre-ERAS group (P = 0·273). The mean intensive care unit (ICU) and intermediate care costs were euro9139 and euro13 793 per patient for the ERAS and pre-ERAS groups respectively (P = 0·151). CONCLUSION: ERAS implementation for pancreaticoduodenectomy did not increase the costs in this cohort. Savings were noted in anaesthesia/operating room, medication and laboratory costs. Fewer patients in the ERAS group required an ICU stay.

Eligibility to treatment and economic effect of the implementation of the new U.S. or European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology hypertension guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the population and economic impact of implementing the new Joint National Committee (JNC) or European Society of Hypertension (ESH)/European Society of Cardiology (ESC) hypertension guidelines in the Swiss population. METHODS: Cross-sectional, population-based sample (6708 participants) collected between 2003 and 2006 in the city of Lausanne, Switzerland. Blood pressure categories were defined according to both the JNC (JNC-7 and JNC-8) and the ESH/ESC (2007 and 2013) guidelines. RESULTS: The proportion of participants aged 35-60 years eligible for drug treatment was 25.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 24.4-26.9%] and 24.8% (95% CI 23.6-26.0%) for the JNC-7 and the JNC-8 guidelines, respectively; for participants aged 60-75 years, the values were 62.3% (95% CI 60.1-64.5%) and 46.8% (95% CI 44.5-49.0%), respectively. Shifting from the JNC-7 to the JNC-8 guidelines would lead to an annual saving of 163.6 million Swiss francs (187.7 million US dollars or 134.5 million European euro). The proportion of participants aged 35-75 years without chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus or reported history of cardiovascular disease and eligible for treatment was 30.2% (95% CI 29.0-31.4%) for the ESH/ESC 2007 and 2013 guidelines. For participants with chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus or reported history of cardiovascular disease, the values were 73.6% (95% CI 70.8-76.3%) and 55.6% (95% CI 52.5-58.8%), respectively. Shifting from the ESH/ESC 2007 to the ESH/ESC 2013 guidelines would lead to an annual saving of 86.9 million Swiss francs (99.5 million US dollars or 71.4 million European euro). CONCLUSION: In Switzerland, shifting from the JNC-7 to the JNC-8 guidelines or from the ESH/ESC 2007 to the ESH/ESC 2013 guidelines would decrease the prevalence of patients eligible for treatment and increase the percentage of treated patients within blood pressure goals. Both strategies lead to potential savings in antihypertensive drug treatment.