Suppr超能文献

在首个前瞻性随机氨氯地平生存评估研究中,非缺血性心肌病患者的医院使用情况及费用

Hospital use and costs among patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy in the first prospective randomized amlodipine survival evaluation study.

作者信息

O'Connor C M, Radensky P W, Unger A N, Martin B C

机构信息

Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.

出版信息

Clin Ther. 1999 Jul;21(7):1254-65. doi: 10.1016/S0149-2918(00)80027-2.

Abstract

The incidence of hospitalizations, lengths of stay, and per-diem costs were determined for 421 patients (amlodipine, 209; placebo, 212) with nonischemic cardiomyopathy in the first Prospective Randomized Amlodipine Survival Evaluation (PRAISE) study to assess the impact of amlodipine on hospital use and to compare the costs of hospitalization with the cost of amlodipine treatment. Treatment with amlodipine versus placebo significantly delayed the mean (+/- SD) time to first hospitalization (447 +/- 26 d vs 315 +/- 18 d, respectively; P = 0.0139). Both treatment groups showed a similar number of hospital admissions per patient per year. The overall hospital length of stay was 1.17 days less per year with amlodipine than with placebo, at a cost of $1098 less per person per year although these differences were not statistically significant. Significantly fewer amlodipine patients were admitted for unexplained cardiac arrest (odds ratio, 0.235; P = 0.002) and ventricular arrhythmias (odds ratio, 0.497; P = 0.004). These findings are consistent with clinical reports from PRAISE of prolonged survival and a reduction in sudden cardiac death among patients with severe heart failure due to nonischemic heart disease. This analysis suggests that in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy, treatment with amlodipine can delay the time to hospitalization and may reduce the number of hospital admissions related to ventricular arrhythmias. The estimated reduction in hospital costs of $1098 per year would more than offset the amlodipine treatment cost of approximately $700 per year.

摘要

在首个前瞻性随机氨氯地平生存评估(PRAISE)研究中,对421例非缺血性心肌病患者(氨氯地平组209例,安慰剂组212例)的住院率、住院时长和每日费用进行了测定,以评估氨氯地平对医院使用情况的影响,并比较住院费用与氨氯地平治疗费用。与安慰剂相比,氨氯地平治疗显著延迟了首次住院的平均(±标准差)时间(分别为447±26天和315±18天;P = 0.0139)。两个治疗组的每位患者每年住院次数相似。氨氯地平组每年的总体住院时长比安慰剂组少1.17天,每人每年费用少1098美元,尽管这些差异无统计学意义。因不明原因心脏骤停入院的氨氯地平患者显著减少(优势比,0.235;P = 0.002),因室性心律失常入院的患者也显著减少(优势比,0.497;P = 0.004)。这些发现与PRAISE的临床报告一致,即非缺血性心脏病所致严重心力衰竭患者的生存期延长且心源性猝死减少。该分析表明,对于非缺血性心肌病患者,氨氯地平治疗可延迟住院时间,并可能减少与室性心律失常相关的住院次数。估计每年住院费用减少1098美元将超过每年约700美元的氨氯地平治疗费用。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验