...
首页> 外文期刊>Herz >Stent implantation as initial coronary interventional therapy? A theoretical model on clinical and economical consequences of in-stent restenosis.
【24h】

Stent implantation as initial coronary interventional therapy? A theoretical model on clinical and economical consequences of in-stent restenosis.

机译:支架植入作为初始冠状动脉介入治疗?支架内再狭窄的临床和经济后果的理论模型。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

The reduction of acute complications and late restenosis compared to conventional PTCA has led to a rapid increase in stent implantation as initial treatment for coronary stenosis. As a result, in-stent restenosis has become an important clinical and economical problem, especially the diffuse form, which is much more likely to reappear. In order to compare the consequences of initial stenting and initial angioplasty, we developed an analytic model, considering the differences between diffuse and focal in-stent restenosis. The simulation based on the optimized therapeutic proceeding following an elective 1-vessel revascularization of a 60-year-old patient, dealing with probabilities for acute complications and late restenosis taken from the literature and in-hospital costs obtained from 200 elective interventions. In the stent group 71.0% of patients were free of any target lesion-related event, compared to 60.2% in the PTCA group. Catheter reintervention was necessary for 32.1% of the patients initially treated with angioplasty and for 17.6% of the initially stented patients, whereas 7.7% of the stent patients had to undergo elective bypass surgery as final treatment compared to 2.8% in the PTCA arm. Long-term medical costs for initial stenting (6,237 Euros) were 14% higher than for conventional PTCA (5,345 Euros). Taking also into consideration the indirect costs (loss of productivity) for a collective with an employment rate of 50%, the difference between stent implantation (9,067 Euros) and angioplasty (8,581 Euros) is smaller. Initial treatment of coronary stenosis by stent implantation decreases the rate of repeat revascularization compared to initial PTCA, but there is a greater likelihood that elective bypass surgery will become necessary. This difference in following treatment is related to the occurrence of diffuse in-stent restenosis. When calculating the long-term costs stenting still appeared to be more expensive than PTCAA because the savings in following costs can not compensate for the higher primary in-hospital costs. An empirical study which collects cost data in different hospitals as well as in the outpatient setting over 1 year is necessary to confirm this preliminary result.
机译:与常规PTCA相比,急性并发症和晚期再狭窄的减少已导致支架植入作为冠状动脉狭窄的初始治疗方法迅速增加。结果,支架内再狭窄已成为重要的临床和经济问题,尤其是弥散形式,这种形式更可能再次出现。为了比较初始支架置入和初始血管成形术的后果,我们考虑了弥漫性和局灶性支架内再狭窄之间的差异,开发了一种分析模型。该模拟基于对一名60岁患者进行选择性1血管血运重建后的最佳治疗程序的研究,该处理涉及文献中记录的急性并发症和晚期再狭窄的概率以及从200项选择性干预中获得的住院费用。在支架组中,71.0%的患者未发生任何与目标病变相关的事件,而PTCA组为60.2%。最初接受血管成形术治疗的患者中,有32.1%的患者需要进行导管再介入,而最初置入支架的患者中,有17.6%的患者需要进行导管再干预,而最后接受治疗的支架患者中有7.7%必须接受择期旁路手术,而PTCA组为2.8%。初始支架的长期医疗费用(6,237欧元)比常规PTCA的长期医疗费用(5,345欧元)高14%。还考虑到就业率为50%的集体的间接成本(生产力损失),支架植入(9,067欧元)和血管成形术(8,581欧元)之间的差异较小。与初始PTCA相比,通过支架植入术对冠状动脉狭窄的初始治疗降低了重复血运重建的速度,但是选择性旁路手术的可能性更大。后续治疗的差异与支架内弥漫性再狭窄的发生有关。在计算长期成本时,支架置入似乎仍然比PTCAA更昂贵,因为后续成本的节省无法弥补较高的主要住院费用。需要进行一项实证研究,以收集不同医院以及一年以上门诊患者的费用数据,以确认该初步结果。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号