PubMed · 10185436
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
1998. Software programs assess hospital security weaknesses.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10185436/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Health economic analyses of intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) in acute ischemic stroke reveal a substantial cost savings. Unfortunately, tPA is vastly underused. The purpose of this study was to determine the economic impact of increasing tPA utilization in the United States. METHODS: Annual incidence estimates of ischemic stroke in the United States and individual states were obtained. The proportion of all ischemic stroke patients who receive tPA was derived from published data. Economic analyses that report the expected annual cost savings of tPA were consulted. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the healthcare system over a time period of 1 year. With incremental increases in the proportion of all ischemic stroke patients treated with tPA, potential cost savings were recalculated. The outcomes are expressed in dollars saved annually. RESULTS: There are 616,000 new ischemic stroke patients annually. A 600 dollars net cost savings is associated with each tPA-treated patient. Currently, an estimated 2% of all ischemic stroke patients receive tPA. If the proportion was increased to 4, 6, 8, 10, 15, or 20%, the realized cost savings would be approximately 15, 22, 30, 37, 55, and 74 million dollars, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: If even small manageable increases in the proportion of all ischemic stroke patients who received tPA were achieved, it would result in an enormous realized savings for America's healthcare system.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: Eight randomized trials have evaluated whether the prophylactic use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) improves survival among patients who are at risk for sudden death due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction but who have not had a life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of the ICD in the populations represented in these primary-prevention trials. METHODS: We developed a Markov model of the cost, quality of life, survival, and incremental cost-effectiveness of the prophylactic implantation of an ICD, as compared with control therapy, among patients with survival and mortality rates similar to those in each of the clinical trials. We modeled the efficacy of the ICD as a reduction in the relative risk of death on the basis of the hazard ratios reported in the individual clinical trials. RESULTS: Use of the ICD increased lifetime costs in every trial. Two trials--the Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG) Patch Trial and the Defibrillator in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial (DINAMIT)--found that the prophylactic implantation of an ICD did not reduce the risk of death and thus was both more expensive and less effective than control therapy. For the other six trials--the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT) I, MADIT II, the Multicenter Unsustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT), the Defibrillators in Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathy Treatment Evaluation (DEFINITE) trial, the Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing, and Defibrillation in Heart Failure (COMPANION) trial, and the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT)--the use of an ICD was projected to add between 1.01 and 2.99 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and between 68,300 dollars and 101,500 dollars in cost. Using base-case assumptions, we found that the cost-effectiveness of the ICD as compared with control therapy in these six populations ranged from 34,000 dollars to 70,200 dollars per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses showed that this cost-effectiveness ratio would remain below 100,000 dollars per QALY as long as the ICD reduced mortality for seven or more years. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic implantation of an ICD has a cost-effectiveness ratio below 100,000 dollars per QALY gained in populations in which a significant device-related reduction in mortality has been demonstrated.