Ruff Jessica, Udeh Belinda, Linder Susan
Cleveland Clinic, Preventive Medicine, Wellness Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Cleveland Clinic, Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Clin Rehabil. 2025 Feb;39(2):153-160. doi: 10.1177/02692155241302765. Epub 2025 Jan 3.
To investigate the cost-effectiveness of a cardiac rehabilitation program in individuals with stroke compared with customary care.
A Markov model was created using a 30-year time horizon, with cycle lengths of 1 year to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a cardiac rehabilitation program in persons with stroke. Input parameters were based on recently published literature. Health states were defined as degree of disability evaluated by the modified Rankin scale score. Costs were based on recent cost-effectiveness analyses and inflated to 2024 US Dollars using the medical care component of the US Consumer Price Index.
Outpatient ambulatory setting.
Persons with mild disability after ischemic stroke.
A model comparing cardiac rehabilitation versus usual care was created.
Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were used to measure the effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation versus usual care. The cost-effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation versus usual care was compared with respect to incremental costs, incremental effectiveness, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
Cardiac rehabilitation was the superior strategy, resulting in higher incremental effectiveness of 3.28 QALY at an increased incremental cost of $5704. The ICER was $1740/QALY. A two-way sensitivity analysis of these variables had no change, with cardiac rehab remaining the optimal strategy.
While numerous studies and systematic analyses have reported compelling evidence of the clinical benefits of cardiac rehabilitation for patients with stroke, the current study contributes to the existing body of literature, demonstrating that cardiac rehabilitation is also cost-effective in the stroke population.
研究心脏康复计划相较于常规护理对中风患者的成本效益。
采用马尔可夫模型,时间跨度为30年,周期长度为1年,以确定心脏康复计划对中风患者的有效性和成本效益。输入参数基于最近发表的文献。健康状态根据改良Rankin量表评分评估的残疾程度来定义。成本基于最近的成本效益分析,并使用美国消费者价格指数的医疗保健部分将其折算为2024年美元。
门诊流动诊所。
缺血性中风后轻度残疾的患者。
创建了一个比较心脏康复与常规护理的模型。
采用质量调整生命年(QALY)来衡量心脏康复与常规护理的有效性。比较心脏康复与常规护理的成本效益,涉及增量成本、增量有效性和增量成本效益比(ICER)。
心脏康复是更优策略,增量有效性更高,为3.28个QALY,增量成本增加了5704美元。ICER为1740美元/QALY。对这些变量进行的双向敏感性分析没有变化,心脏康复仍是最优策略。
虽然众多研究和系统分析报告了心脏康复对中风患者临床益处的有力证据,但本研究为现有文献做出了贡献,表明心脏康复在中风人群中也具有成本效益。