Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Economic evaluation of the one-hour rule-out and rule-in algorithm for acute myocardial infarction using the high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T assay in the emergency department

2017; Public Library of Science; Volume: 12; Issue: 11 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1371/journal.pone.0187662

1932-6203

Apoorva Ambavane, Bertil Lindahl, Evangelos Giannitis, Julie Roïz, Joan Mendívil, Lutz Frankenstein, Richard Body, Michael Christ, Roland Bingisser, Aitor Alquézar, Christian Mueller,

Healthcare cost, quality, practices

Background The 1-hour (h) algorithm triages patients presenting with suspected acute myocardial infarction (AMI) to the emergency department (ED) towards “rule-out,” “rule-in,” or “observation,” depending on baseline and 1-h levels of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn). The economic consequences of applying the accelerated 1-h algorithm are unknown. Methods and findings We performed a post-hoc economic analysis in a large, diagnostic, multicenter study of hs-cTnT using central adjudication of the final diagnosis by two independent cardiologists. Length of stay (LoS), resource utilization (RU), and predicted diagnostic accuracy of the 1-h algorithm compared to standard of care (SoC) in the ED were estimated. The ED LoS, RU, and accuracy of the 1-h algorithm was compared to that achieved by the SoC at ED discharge. Expert opinion was sought to characterize clinical implementation of the 1-h algorithm, which required blood draws at ED presentation and 1h, after which “rule-in” patients were transferred for coronary angiography, “rule-out” patients underwent outpatient stress testing, and “observation” patients received SoC. Unit costs were for the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and Germany. The sensitivity and specificity for the 1-h algorithm were 87% and 96%, respectively, compared to 69% and 98% for SoC. The mean ED LoS for the 1-h algorithm was 4.3h—it was 6.5h for SoC, which is a reduction of 33%. The 1-h algorithm was associated with reductions in RU, driven largely by the shorter LoS in the ED for patients with a diagnosis other than AMI. The estimated total costs per patient were £2,480 for the 1-h algorithm compared to £4,561 for SoC, a reduction of up to 46%. Conclusions The analysis shows that the use of 1-h algorithm is associated with reduction in overall AMI diagnostic costs, provided it is carefully implemented in clinical practice. These results need to be prospectively validated in the future.