Abstract
Cost-effectiveness can be a helpful indicator of therapeutic value and is an important consideration when determining whether to use an invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation (NSTE) acute coronary syndromes. In an economic analysis using results from RITA 3, Henriksson et al. found that an invasive strategy was not cost-effective in patients with low-risk disease, but was cost-effective for patients with high-risk disease and of equivocal cost-effectiveness in patients with intermediate-risk disease. This finding is consistent with those of other studies, especially FRISC II and TACTICS-TIMI 18, which found an invasive strategy to be cost-effective in patients with biomarker-positive NSTE myocardial infarction. An invasive strategy should, therefore, be considered for treatment of patients with high-risk NSTE myocardial infarction. Although available data are not based on the latest technology, another trial in this area would be difficult to conduct and of questionable ethics.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Weintraub WS (Ed.; 2003). Cardiovascular Health Care Economics. Totowa: Humana Press
Mahoney EM and Chu H (2003) Cost-Effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials: statistical and methodologic issues. I. Cardiovascular Health Care Economics, 123–156 (Ed. Weintraub WS) Totowa: Humana Press
Mehta SR et al. (2005) Routine vs selective invasive strategies in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials. JAMA 293: 2908–2917
de Winter RJ et al. (2005) Early invasive versus selectively invasive management for acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 353: 1095–1104
Fox KA et al. (2005) 5-year outcome of an interventional strategy in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: the British Heart Foundation RITA 3 randomised trial. Lancet 366: 914–920
Cannon CP et al. (2001) Comparison of early invasive and conservative strategies in patients with unstable coronary syndromes treated with the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofiban. N Engl J Med 344: 1879–1887
Mahoney EM et al. (2002) Cost and cost-effectiveness of an early invasive vs conservative strategy for the treatment of unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. JAMA 288: 1851–1858
Henriksson M et al. (2008) The cost-effectiveness of an early interventional strategy in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome based on the RITA 3 trial. Heart 94: 717–723
Janzon M et al. (2002) Cost-effectiveness of an invasive strategy in unstable coronary artery disease; results from the FRISC II invasive trial. The fast revascularisation during instability in coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J 23: 31–40
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author declares no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Weintraub, W. Is an invasive interventional strategy of value in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes?. Nat Rev Cardiol 5, 754–755 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpcardio1368
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpcardio1368
