• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

经皮冠状动脉支架置入术后随访性有创冠状动脉造影的成本效益:日本真实世界观察性队列研究。

Cost-effectiveness of follow-up invasive coronary angiography after percutaneous coronary stenting: a real-world observational cohort study in Japan.

机构信息

Department of Cardiovascular Biology and Medicine, Juntendo University, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.

Abbvie GK, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2022 Aug 30;12(8):e061617. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061617.

DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061617
PMID:36041769
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9437734/
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Follow-up invasive coronary angiography (FUICA) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been shown to increase the rate of early coronary revascularisation without reducing the incidence of subsequent myocardial infarction or death. However, no studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of FUICA in patients after coronary stenting. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FUICA after PCI.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational cohort study.

SETTING

497 hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS

Overall, 558 patients who underwent coronary artery stenting between April 2014 and March 2015 were matched and included in the invasive angiographic follow-up (AF) group (n=279), in which patients underwent FUICA 6-12 months after PCI, or in the clinical follow-up alone group (CF; n=279) using propensity scores.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary endpoint was the composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, urgent coronary revascularisation, stroke or hospitalisation for the heart failure. The secondary endpoints included all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, urgent revascularisation, coronary artery bypass grafting, stroke, hospitalisation for the heart failure and any coronary revascularisation after a minimum of 6 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

Costs were calculated as direct medical expenses based on medical fee billing information. The cumulative 3-year incidence of the primary endpoint was 5.3% in the AF group and 4.7% in the CF group (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.47 to 2.20; p=0.98). The total incremental cost at the 3-year endpoint in the AF group was US$1874 higher than that in the CF group (US$8947±US$5684 vs US$7073±US$6360; p≤0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

FUICA increased the costs but did not improve clinical benefits. Thus, FUICA is not economically more attractive than CF alone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000039768.

摘要

目的

经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)后的有创冠状动脉造影(FUICA)随访已被证明可提高早期冠状动脉血运重建的比率,而不降低随后心肌梗死或死亡的发生率。然而,尚无研究评估 FUICA 在冠状动脉支架置入术后患者中的成本效益。因此,本研究旨在评估 PCI 后 FUICA 的成本效益。

设计

回顾性观察性队列研究。

地点

497 家医院。

参与者和干预措施

共有 558 例于 2014 年 4 月至 2015 年 3 月接受冠状动脉支架置入术的患者接受匹配并纳入血管造影随访(AF)组(n=279),其中患者在 PCI 后 6-12 个月接受 FUICA,或仅接受临床随访(CF;n=279),采用倾向评分法。

主要和次要结局测量

主要终点是死亡、心肌梗死、紧急冠状动脉血运重建、卒中和心力衰竭住院的复合结局。次要终点包括全因死亡、非致死性心肌梗死、紧急血运重建、冠状动脉旁路移植术、卒中和心力衰竭住院以及至少 6 个月随访后的任何冠状动脉血运重建。

结果

成本根据医疗费用计费信息计算为直接医疗费用。AF 组的 3 年累积主要终点发生率为 5.3%,CF 组为 4.7%(HR 1.02;95%CI 0.47 至 2.20;p=0.98)。在 3 年终点时,AF 组的总增量成本比 CF 组高 1874 美元(AF 组为 8947±5684 美元,CF 组为 7073±6360 美元;p≤0.001)。

结论

FUICA 增加了成本,但没有改善临床获益。因此,与单独 CF 相比,FUICA 在经济上没有吸引力。

临床试验注册号

UMIN000039768。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a958/9437734/c2c6dcbdb574/bmjopen-2022-061617f03.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a958/9437734/0252a60bb95e/bmjopen-2022-061617f01.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a958/9437734/f629d4e510e7/bmjopen-2022-061617f02.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a958/9437734/c2c6dcbdb574/bmjopen-2022-061617f03.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a958/9437734/0252a60bb95e/bmjopen-2022-061617f01.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a958/9437734/f629d4e510e7/bmjopen-2022-061617f02.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a958/9437734/c2c6dcbdb574/bmjopen-2022-061617f03.jpg

相似文献

1
Cost-effectiveness of follow-up invasive coronary angiography after percutaneous coronary stenting: a real-world observational cohort study in Japan.经皮冠状动脉支架置入术后随访性有创冠状动脉造影的成本效益:日本真实世界观察性队列研究。
BMJ Open. 2022 Aug 30;12(8):e061617. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061617.
2
The ReACT Trial: Randomized Evaluation of Routine Follow-up Coronary Angiography After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Trial.ReACT 试验:经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后常规冠状动脉造影随访的随机评估试验。
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Jan 23;10(2):109-117. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.10.018. Epub 2016 Dec 28.
3
Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in the treatment of unprotected left main stenosis: updated 5-year outcomes from the randomised, non-inferiority NOBLE trial.经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗无保护左主干狭窄:NOBLE 随机非劣效性试验的 5 年更新结果。
Lancet. 2020 Jan 18;395(10219):191-199. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32972-1. Epub 2019 Dec 23.
4
Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention versus bypass surgery from a Dutch perspective.从荷兰视角看经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与搭桥手术的成本效益
Heart. 2015 Dec;101(24):1980-8. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2015-307578. Epub 2015 Nov 9.
5
Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease: Three-Year Follow-Up of the FAME 2 Trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation).稳定性冠心病患者中血流储备分数指导的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的临床结局和成本效益:多血管评估的 FAME 2 试验(血流储备分数与血管造影比较)的 3 年随访结果。
Circulation. 2018 Jan 30;137(5):480-487. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.031907. Epub 2017 Nov 2.
6
Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease compared to coronary artery bypass surgery five-years after intervention.与冠状动脉搭桥手术相比,药物洗脱支架经皮冠状动脉介入治疗多支冠状动脉疾病患者术后五年的成本效益。
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Dec 1;84(7):1029-39. doi: 10.1002/ccd.25397. Epub 2014 Feb 1.
7
Comparison of Five-Year Outcome of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Triple-Vessel Coronary Artery Disease (from the Coronary Revascularization Demonstrating Outcome Study in Kyoto PCI/CABG Registry Cohort-2).经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗三支血管冠状动脉疾病的五年疗效比较(来自京都经皮冠状动脉介入治疗/冠状动脉旁路移植术注册队列-2的冠状动脉血运重建疗效研究)
Am J Cardiol. 2015 Jul 1;116(1):59-65. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.03.040. Epub 2015 Apr 7.
8
Coronary bypass surgery versus stenting in multivessel disease involving the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery.在涉及左冠状动脉前降支近端的多支血管病变中,冠状动脉搭桥手术与支架置入术的比较
Heart. 2017 Mar;103(6):428-433. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2016-309720. Epub 2016 Sep 20.
9
Beta blockers versus calcium channel blockers for provocation of vasospastic angina after drug-eluting stent implantation: a multicentre prospective randomised trial.药物洗脱支架植入术后β受体阻滞剂与钙通道阻滞剂诱发血管痉挛性心绞痛的比较:一项多中心前瞻性随机试验。
Open Heart. 2020 Oct;7(2). doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2020-001406.
10
Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of facilitated percutaneous coronary intervention compared with primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction transferred from community hospitals.与直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗相比,在从社区医院转诊的ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者中,实施辅助经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的有效性和成本效益。
Clin Ther. 2006 Jul;28(7):1054-62. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2006.07.007.

引用本文的文献

1
Comparative analysis of different biopsy techniques for pancreatic lesions in diagnostic value, safety, and cost-effectiveness.不同活检技术对胰腺病变的诊断价值、安全性及成本效益的比较分析。
Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2025 May 1;15(5):4375-4386. doi: 10.21037/qims-2024-2670. Epub 2025 Apr 28.

本文引用的文献

1
Estimating the economic impacts of percutaneous coronary intervention in Australia: a registry-based cost burden study.估算澳大利亚经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的经济影响:基于登记的费用负担研究。
BMJ Open. 2021 Dec 7;11(12):e053305. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053305.
2
Health economics-based verification of functional myocardial ischemia evaluation of stable coronary artery disease in Japan: A long-term longitudinal study using propensity score matching.基于健康经济学的日本稳定性冠状动脉疾病功能性心肌缺血评估的验证:使用倾向评分匹配的长期纵向研究。
J Nucl Cardiol. 2022 Jun;29(3):1356-1369. doi: 10.1007/s12350-020-02502-9. Epub 2021 Jan 18.
3
History and Profile of Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC): Development of a Real Data Collection System for Acute Inpatient Care in Japan.
诊断程序组合(DPC)的历史和概况:日本急性住院护理真实数据采集系统的开发。
J Epidemiol. 2021 Jan 5;31(1):1-11. doi: 10.2188/jea.JE20200288. Epub 2020 Nov 21.
4
Coronary Disease Surveillance in the Community: Angiography and Revascularization.社区中的冠心病监测:血管造影术和血运重建术。
J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Apr 7;9(7):e015231. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.015231. Epub 2020 Apr 2.
5
2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes.2019年欧洲心脏病学会慢性冠状动脉综合征诊断和管理指南
Eur Heart J. 2020 Jan 14;41(3):407-477. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz425.
6
Coronary CT Angiography and 5-Year Risk of Myocardial Infarction.冠状动脉 CT 血管造影与 5 年内心肌梗死风险。
N Engl J Med. 2018 Sep 6;379(10):924-933. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1805971. Epub 2018 Aug 25.
7
Association of Medical Liability Reform With Clinician Approach to Coronary Artery Disease Management.医疗责任改革与临床医生冠心病管理方法的关联。
JAMA Cardiol. 2018 Jul 1;3(7):609-618. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2018.1360.
8
Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease: Three-Year Follow-Up of the FAME 2 Trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation).稳定性冠心病患者中血流储备分数指导的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的临床结局和成本效益:多血管评估的 FAME 2 试验(血流储备分数与血管造影比较)的 3 年随访结果。
Circulation. 2018 Jan 30;137(5):480-487. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.031907. Epub 2017 Nov 2.
9
Prospective Study on the Incidence of Cerebrovascular Disease After Coronary Angiography.冠状动脉造影术后脑血管病发病的前瞻性研究。
J Atheroscler Thromb. 2018 Mar 1;25(3):224-232. doi: 10.5551/jat.41012. Epub 2017 Aug 30.
10
Role of Routine Follow-up Coronary Angiography After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后常规随访冠状动脉造影的作用:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Circ J. 2017 Dec 25;82(1):203-210. doi: 10.1253/circj.CJ-17-0410. Epub 2017 Jul 29.