Suppr超能文献

短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA)患者应住院治疗还是转至当日就诊诊所?:决策分析。

Should TIA patients be hospitalized or referred to a same-day clinic?: a decision analysis.

机构信息

Rush University Medical Center, Department of Neurological Sciences, Chicago, IL, USA.

出版信息

Neurology. 2011 Dec 13;77(24):2082-8. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e31823d763f. Epub 2011 Nov 16.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

For patients presenting with TIA, a previous study concluded that hospitalization is cost-effective compared to discharge without treatment from the emergency department. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of hospitalization vs urgent clinic evaluation following TIA.

METHODS

Among a cohort of TIA patients, we created a decision tree model to compare the decision to hospitalize or refer to urgent-access specialty clinic. We estimated probabilities, utilities, and direct costs from the available literature and calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). We assumed equal access to standard medical treatments between the 2 approaches; however, we estimated higher tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) utilization among hospitalized patients. We performed sensitivity analyses to assess all assumptions in our model.

RESULTS

In patients with TIA aged 65-74 years, hospitalization yielded additional 0.00026 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at 1 year, but at an additional cost of $5,573 per patient compared to urgent clinic evaluation (ICER = $21,434,615/QALY). Over 30 years, the ICER was $3,473,125/QALY. These results were not sensitive to varying 48-hour stroke risk, length of stay, tPA utilization rate, QALYs saved per tPA treatment, and hospitalization and clinic costs, and cost saved per tPA treatment.

CONCLUSION

Despite increased access to tPA in the hospital, we found that hospitalization is not cost-effective compared to same-day clinic evaluation following TIA. A very small fraction of patients benefits from hospitalization if urgent-access TIA clinics are available. The widespread development of urgent-access TIA clinics is warranted.

摘要

目的

对于出现 TIA 的患者,先前的一项研究得出结论,与从急诊科出院未经治疗相比,住院治疗具有成本效益。我们对 TIA 后住院与紧急诊所评估进行了成本效益分析。

方法

在 TIA 患者队列中,我们创建了一个决策树模型,以比较住院或转至紧急就诊专科诊所的决策。我们从现有文献中估计了概率、效用和直接成本,并计算了增量成本效益比(ICER)。我们假设两种方法之间有平等获得标准医疗的机会;然而,我们估计住院患者更有可能使用组织型纤溶酶原激活剂(tPA)。我们进行了敏感性分析,以评估模型中的所有假设。

结果

在 65-74 岁的 TIA 患者中,与紧急诊所评估相比,住院治疗在 1 年内额外增加了 0.00026 个质量调整生命年(QALY),但每位患者的额外成本为 5573 美元(ICER = 21434615 美元/QALY)。在 30 年内,ICER 为 3473125 美元/QALY。这些结果不受 48 小时内中风风险、住院时间、tPA 使用率、每例 tPA 治疗节省的 QALY 以及住院和诊所费用的变化以及每例 tPA 治疗节省的成本的影响。

结论

尽管在医院内获得 tPA 的机会增加,但我们发现与 TIA 后当天诊所评估相比,住院治疗并不具有成本效益。如果有紧急 TIA 诊所,只有极少数患者受益于住院治疗。因此,有必要广泛发展紧急 TIA 诊所。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验