Frederix Ines, Hansen Dominique, Coninx Karin, Vandervoort Pieter, Vandijck Dominique, Hens Niel, Van Craenenbroeck Emeline, Van Driessche Niels, Dendale Paul
Department of Cardiology, Jessa Hospital, Hasselt, Belgium Faculty of Medicine & Life Sciences, Hasselt University, Belgium
Faculty of Medicine & Life Sciences, Hasselt University, Belgium.
Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2016 May;23(7):674-82. doi: 10.1177/2047487315602257. Epub 2015 Aug 19.
Notwithstanding the cardiovascular disease epidemic, current budgetary constraints do not allow for budget expansion of conventional cardiac rehabilitation programmes. Consequently, there is an increasing need for cost-effectiveness studies of alternative strategies such as telerehabilitation. The present study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a comprehensive cardiac telerehabilitation programme.
This multi-centre randomized controlled trial comprised 140 cardiac rehabilitation patients, randomized (1:1) to a 24-week telerehabilitation programme in addition to conventional cardiac rehabilitation (intervention group) or to conventional cardiac rehabilitation alone (control group). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated based on intervention and health care costs (incremental cost), and the differential incremental quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained.
The total average cost per patient was significantly lower in the intervention group (€2156 ± €126) than in the control group (€2720 ± €276) (p = 0.01) with an overall incremental cost of €-564.40. Dividing this incremental cost by the baseline adjusted differential incremental QALYs (0.026 QALYs) yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €-21,707/QALY. The number of days lost due to cardiovascular rehospitalizations in the intervention group (0.33 ± 0.15) was significantly lower than in the control group (0.79 ± 0.20) (p = 0.037).
This paper shows the addition of cardiac telerehabilitation to conventional centre-based cardiac rehabilitation to be more effective and efficient than centre-based cardiac rehabilitation alone. These results are useful for policy makers charged with deciding how limited health care resources should best be allocated in the era of exploding need.
尽管心血管疾病盛行,但当前的预算限制不允许扩大传统心脏康复项目的预算。因此,对远程康复等替代策略进行成本效益研究的需求日益增加。本研究评估了一项全面的心脏远程康复项目的成本效益。
这项多中心随机对照试验纳入了140名心脏康复患者,随机(1:1)分为两组,一组除接受传统心脏康复外,还接受为期24周的远程康复项目(干预组),另一组仅接受传统心脏康复(对照组)。基于干预和医疗保健成本(增量成本)以及获得的差异增量质量调整生命年(QALYs)计算增量成本效益比。
干预组每位患者的总平均成本(2156±126欧元)显著低于对照组(2720±276欧元)(p = 0.01),总体增量成本为-564.40欧元。将此增量成本除以基线调整后的差异增量QALYs(0.026 QALYs),得出增量成本效益比为-21,707欧元/QALY。干预组因心血管疾病再次住院而损失的天数(0.33±0.15)显著低于对照组(0.79±0.20)(p = 0.037)。
本文表明,在传统的基于中心的心脏康复基础上增加心脏远程康复比单纯的基于中心的心脏康复更有效且更高效。这些结果对于负责决定在需求激增的时代如何最佳分配有限医疗资源的政策制定者很有用。