Taylor R S, Watt A, Dalal H M, Evans P H, Campbell J L, Read K L Q, Mourant A J, Wingham Jenny, Thompson D R, Pereira Gray D J
Peninsula Medical School, UK.
Int J Cardiol. 2007 Jul 10;119(2):196-201. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2006.07.218. Epub 2006 Nov 7.
Home-based cardiac rehabilitation offers an alternative to traditional, hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation.
To compare the cost effectiveness of home-based cardiac rehabilitation and hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation.
104 patients with an uncomplicated acute myocardial infarction and without major comorbidity were randomized to receive home-based rehabilitation (n=60) i.e. nurse facilitated, self-help package of 6 weeks' duration (the Heart Manual) or hospital-based rehabilitation for 8-10 weeks (n=44). Complete economic data were available in 80 patients (48 who received home-based rehabilitation and 32 who received hospital-based rehabilitation). Healthcare costs, patient costs, and quality of life (EQ-5D4.13) were assessed over the 9 months of the study.
The cost of running the home-based rehabilitation programme was slightly lower than that of the hospital-based programme (mean (95% confidence interval) difference - 30 pounds sterling (- 45 pounds sterling to - 12 pounds sterling) [-44 euro, -67 euro to -18 euro] per patient. The cost difference was largely the result of reduced personnel costs. Over the 9 months of the study, no significant difference was seen between the two groups in overall healthcare costs (78 pounds sterling, - 1102 pounds sterling to 1191 pounds sterling [-115 euro, -1631 euro to -1763 euro] per patient) or quality adjusted life-years (-0.06 (-0.15 to 0.02)). The lack of significant difference between home-based rehabilitation and hospital-based rehabilitation did not alter when different costs and different methods of analysis were used.
The health gain and total healthcare costs of the present hospital-based and home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes for patients after myocardial infarction appear to be similar. These initial results require affirmation by further economic evaluations of cardiac rehabilitation in different settings.
居家心脏康复为传统的医院心脏康复提供了一种替代方案。
比较居家心脏康复与医院心脏康复的成本效益。
104例无复杂急性心肌梗死且无重大合并症的患者被随机分为两组,一组接受居家康复(n = 60),即由护士协助、为期6周的自助方案(《心脏手册》),另一组接受为期8 - 10周的医院康复(n = 44)。80例患者(48例接受居家康复,32例接受医院康复)有完整的经济数据。在研究的9个月期间评估了医疗保健成本、患者成本和生活质量(EQ - 5D4.13)。
居家康复计划的运营成本略低于医院康复计划(平均(95%置信区间)差异为每位患者 - 30英镑(- 45英镑至 - 12英镑)[- 44欧元,- 67欧元至 - 18欧元])。成本差异主要是由于人员成本降低。在研究的9个月期间,两组在总体医疗保健成本(每位患者78英镑,- 1102英镑至1191英镑[- 115欧元,- 1631欧元至 - 1763欧元])或质量调整生命年(- 0.06(- 0.15至0.02))方面没有显著差异。当使用不同成本和不同分析方法时,居家康复和医院康复之间缺乏显著差异的情况并未改变。
目前针对心肌梗死后患者的医院心脏康复计划和居家心脏康复计划在健康获益和总医疗保健成本方面似乎相似。这些初步结果需要通过对不同环境下心脏康复的进一步经济评估来确认。