Beck J R, Salem D N, Estes N A, Pauker S G
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1987 Apr;9(4):920-35. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(87)80251-6.
This review illustrates the use of computer-based Markov models to estimate cost-effectiveness and prognosis in a complex problem in clinical cardiology. Decision analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis were used to assess whether to implant a permanent cardiac pacemaker, treat with drugs, perform electrophysiologic studies or observe patients who have two clinical features--syncope and bifascicular block--that may or may not be causally related. Using a Markov process model, a computer program simulated the prognosis of five cohorts of such patients--one treated conservatively, one given empiric antiarrhythmic drug therapy, one receiving a pacemaker, one treated with empiric drugs and pacing and one tested with electrophysiologic studies. On the basis of data from published reports and expert opinion, quality-adjusted life expectancy was calculated by summing the average time a member of each cohort would survive with and without symptoms for each initial treatment choice. The costs were estimated from 1985 hospital charges. For patients with normal left ventricular function, electrophysiologic testing provides a benefit of 14 quality-adjusted months of life over observation, at an additional cost of $24,200. Empiric pacing would add 2.5 additional months, at a further cost of $14,300. In patients with poor left ventricular function, empiric drug therapy offers 1.5 additional quality-adjusted months over observation, at a cost of $6,900. Electrophysiologic testing provides a further 16.5 months at an additional cost of $16,900. These results hold when the relation between symptoms and arrhythmia is not firmly established. Varying the probabilities of underlying ventricular tachyarrhythmias, bradyarrhythmic conduction defects or noncardiac causes of syncope affects the cost-effectiveness relative to the alternative treatments.
本综述阐述了如何使用基于计算机的马尔可夫模型来评估临床心脏病学复杂问题中的成本效益和预后。决策分析和成本效益分析被用于评估对于具有晕厥和双分支阻滞这两种可能存在或不存在因果关系的临床特征的患者,是植入永久性心脏起搏器、进行药物治疗、开展电生理研究还是进行观察。使用马尔可夫过程模型,一个计算机程序模拟了五组此类患者的预后情况——一组接受保守治疗,一组给予经验性抗心律失常药物治疗,一组植入起搏器,一组接受经验性药物和起搏治疗,一组进行电生理研究测试。根据已发表报告的数据和专家意见,通过对每组患者在每种初始治疗选择下有症状和无症状存活的平均时间求和,计算出质量调整生命预期。成本是根据1985年的医院收费估算的。对于左心室功能正常的患者,电生理测试相较于观察可带来14个质量调整生命月的益处,额外成本为24,200美元。经验性起搏可再增加2.5个月,额外成本为14,300美元。对于左心室功能较差的患者,经验性药物治疗相较于观察可多提供1.5个质量调整生命月,成本为6,900美元。电生理测试可再增加16.5个月,额外成本为16,900美元。当症状与心律失常之间的关系尚未明确确立时,这些结果依然成立。改变潜在室性快速心律失常、缓慢性心律失常传导缺陷或晕厥的非心脏性病因的概率会影响相对于其他治疗方法的成本效益。