Cost-effectiveness of remote ischaemic conditioning as an adjunct to primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Issue 3 (1st April 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sloth, Astrid D; Schmidt, Michael R; Munk, Kim; Schmidt, Morten; Pedersen, Lars; Sørensen, Henrik T; Enemark, Ulrika; Parner, Erik T; Bøtker, Hans Erik; Bøttcher, M; Kaltoft, A K; Terkelsen, C J; Andersen, N H; Hansen, T M; Trautner, S; Lassen, J F; Christiansen, E H; Krusell, L R; Kristensen, S D; Thuesen, L; Nielsen, S S; Rehling, M; Nielsen, T T
• Is Part Of: European heart journal. Volume 6:Issue 3(2017)
• Page Start: 244
• Page End: 253
• Publication Date: 2017-04-01
• Subjects: Remote ischaemic conditioning -- ischaemia-reperfusion injury -- ST-elevation myocardial infarction -- primary percutaneous coronary intervention -- cost-effectiveness analysis; 616.1205
• DOI: 10.1177/2048872615626657
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2048-8726

Abstract

Abstract: Aims: Remote ischaemic conditioning seems to improve long-term clinical outcomes in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Remote ischaemic conditioning can be applied with cycles of alternating inflation and deflation of a blood-pressure cuff. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of remote ischaemic conditioning as an adjunct to primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction from the perspective of the Danish healthcare system. Methods and results: Between February 2007 and November 2008, 251 patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction were randomly assigned to remote ischaemic conditioning as an adjunct to primary percutaneous coronary intervention ( n =126) or to primary percutaneous coronary intervention alone ( n =125). During a 4-year follow-up period, we used data from Danish medical registries and medical records to estimate within-trial cardiovascular medical care costs and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event-free survival. After 4 years of follow-up, mean cumulative cardiovascular medical care costs were €2763 (95% confidence interval 207–5318, P =0.034) lower in the remote ischaemic conditioning group than in the control group (€12, 065 vs. €14, 828), while mean major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event-free survival time was 0.30 years (95% confidence interval 0.03–0.57, P =0.032) higher in the remote ischaemic conditioning group than in the control group (3.51 vs. 3.21 years). In the cost-effectiveness plane, remote ischaemic conditioning therapy was economically dominant (less costly and more effective) in 97.26% of 10, 000 bootstrap replications. Conclusion: Remote ischaemic conditioning as an adjunct to primary percutaneous coronary intervention appears to be a cost-effective treatment strategy in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction.