Custo-efetividade da trombólise pré-hospitalar vs intra-hospitalar no infarto agudo do miocárdio
Custo-efetividade da trombólise pré-hospitalar vs intra-hospitalar no infarto agudo do miocárdio
Data
2008
Autores
Araújo, Denizar Vianna
Tura, Bernardo Rangel
Brasileiro, Antonio Luiz
Luz Neto, Heitor
Pavão, Ana Luiza Braz
Teich, Vanessa
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia
Resumo
FUNDAMENTO: Existe evidência de que a trombólise pré-hospitalar melhora os desfechos no infarto agudo do miocárdio (IAM) com supradesnivelamento do segmento ST. OBJETIVO: Comparar as relações de custo-efetividade entre trombólise pré-hospitalar e trombólise intra-hospitalar para o IAM com supradesnivelamento do segmento ST, pela perspectiva do Sistema Único de Saúde. MÉTODOS: Modelo analítico de decisão foi utilizado para comparar as duas estratégias. O desfecho do estudo foi "anos de vida ganhos". O uso de recursos e os custos foram estimados pela perspectiva do Sistema Único de Saúde. Árvore de decisão e modelo de Markov foram construídos com resultados de ensaios clínicos publicados. Os custos foram valorados em real (R$), para o ano de 2005. RESULTADOS: Para um horizonte de tempo de vinte anos, a expectativa de vida média com a trombólise pré-hospitalar foi de 11,48 anos e a trombólise intra-hospitalar proporcionou expectativa de vida média de 11,32 anos. Os custos foram de R$ 5.640,00 para a trombólise pré-hospitalar e de R$ 5.816,00 para a trombólise intra-hospitalar. Houve custo adicional de R$ 176,00 por paciente com a trombólise intra-hospitalar. A trombólise pré-hospitalar proporcionou adicional de 0,15 ano de expectativa de vida comparado à trombólise intra-hospitalar. CONCLUSÃO: Esse modelo sugere que, pela perspectiva do Sistema Único de Saúde, implementar a trombólise pré-hospitalar para o IAM com supradesnivelamento do segmento ST pode representar sobrevida extra e menor custo que comparativamente à trombólise intra-hospitalar.
BACKGROUND: There is evidence that prehospital thrombolysis improves the outcome in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at comparing the cost-effectiveness of prehospital compared to inhospital thrombolysis for STEMI from the National Health System perspective. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was used to compare these two strategies. The study endpoint was life-years gained. Resource use and costs were estimated from the National Health System perspective. The Decision tree and Markov Model were constructed using the results of published clinical trials. Costs were expressed in Reais (R$), for the year 2005. RESULTS: For a time horizon of 20 years, prehospital thrombolysis had an average life expectancy of 11.48 years and inhospital thrombolysis had an average life expectancy of 11.32 years. Costs were R$ 5,640 for prehospital thrombolysis and R$ 5,816 for inhospital thrombolysis. Inhospital thrombolysis led to an additional cost of R$ 176 per patient. Pre-hospital thrombolysis led to additional 0.15 years of life-expectancy gain compared with inhospital thrombolysis. CONCLUSION: This model suggests that, from the National Health System perspective, implementing prehospital thrombolysis for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) may lead to extra survival and fewer costs when compared to inhospital thrombolysis.
BACKGROUND: There is evidence that prehospital thrombolysis improves the outcome in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at comparing the cost-effectiveness of prehospital compared to inhospital thrombolysis for STEMI from the National Health System perspective. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was used to compare these two strategies. The study endpoint was life-years gained. Resource use and costs were estimated from the National Health System perspective. The Decision tree and Markov Model were constructed using the results of published clinical trials. Costs were expressed in Reais (R$), for the year 2005. RESULTS: For a time horizon of 20 years, prehospital thrombolysis had an average life expectancy of 11.48 years and inhospital thrombolysis had an average life expectancy of 11.32 years. Costs were R$ 5,640 for prehospital thrombolysis and R$ 5,816 for inhospital thrombolysis. Inhospital thrombolysis led to an additional cost of R$ 176 per patient. Pre-hospital thrombolysis led to additional 0.15 years of life-expectancy gain compared with inhospital thrombolysis. CONCLUSION: This model suggests that, from the National Health System perspective, implementing prehospital thrombolysis for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) may lead to extra survival and fewer costs when compared to inhospital thrombolysis.
Description
Palavras-chave
Myocardial infarction, Thrombolytic therapy, Cost-effectiveness evaluation, Infarto do miocárdio, Terapia trombolítica, Avaliação de custo-efetividade
Citação
Araújo DV, Tura BR, Brasileiro AL, Luz Neto H, Pavão ALB, Teich V. Custo-efetividade da trombólise pré-hospitalar vs intra-hospitalar no infarto agudo do miocárdio. Arq Bras Cardiol [Internet]. 2008Feb;90(2):100–7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0066-782X2008000200005