Economic evaluation of complete revascularization versus stress echocardiography-guided revascularization in the STEACS with multivessel disease

Link to article at PubMed

Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2020 Nov 27:S1885-5857(20)30472-2. doi: 10.1016/j.rec.2020.09.028. Online ahead of print.


INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Economic studies may help decision making in the management of multivessel disease in the setting of myocardial infarction. We sought to perform an economic evaluation of CROSS-AMI (Complete Revascularization or Stress Echocardiography in Patients With Multivessel Disease and ST-Segment Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction) randomized clinical trial.

METHODS: We performed a cost minimization analysis for the strategies (complete angiographic revascularization [ComR] and selective stress echocardiography-guided revascularization [SelR]) compared in the CROSS-AMI clinical trial (N=306), attributable the initial hospitalization and readmissions during the first year of follow-up, using current rates for health services provided by our health system.

RESULTS: The index hospitalization costs were higher in the ComR group than in SelR arm (19 657.9±6236.8 € vs 14 038.7±4958.5 €; P <.001). There were no differences in the costs of the first year of follow-up rehospitalizations between both groups for (ComR 2423.5±4568.0 vs SelR 2653.9±5709.1; P=.697). Total cost was 22 081.3±7505.6 for the ComR arm and 16 692.6±7669.9 for the SelR group (P <.001).

CONCLUSIONS: In the CROSS-AMI trial, the initial extra economic costs of the ComR versus SelR were not offset by significant savings during follow-up. SelR seems to be more efficient than ComR in patients with ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease treated by emergent angioplasty. Study registred at (Identifier: NCT01179126).

PMID:33257214 | DOI:10.1016/j.rec.2020.09.028

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.