Key result
Telemedicine for AMI proves cost-effective and improves QALYs.
Why the study?
While remote monitoring of outpatient acute myocardial infarction treatment has emerged as a successful telemedicine technique, an economic evaluation of telemedicine in these patients required review.
Are telemedicine interventions cost-effective in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Systematic Review (n=6)
Are telemedicine interventions cost-effective in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Telemedicine interventions for acute myocardial infarction are generally cost-effective and can improve quality of life, though results may vary based on disease condition and stage.
Supports telemedicine integration into AMI pathways; extends cost-effectiveness evidence for acute cardiac care.
Background: One of the most important causes of mortality in the world is acute myocardial infarction. There are two general treatments including thrombolytic drugs and percutaneous coronary interventions. But, monitoring outpatient AMI treatment from a remote or rural location has emerged as a successful telemedicine technique. So, the present study aimed to review the economic evaluation studies of telemedicine in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Methods: This study was conducted based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis checklist (PRISMA is a 27-item checklist used to improve transparency in systematic reviews) guidelines in 2022. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Proquest, Iranian databases (SID, Magiran), and Google Scholar were searched with the keywords of telemedicine and myocardial infarction from 2000 to 2022. After eliminating duplicates, titles and abstracts were screened based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, details, and the most important results of eligible studies were recorded in the data collection form. Results: 904 records were identified in this search, of which 147 were duplicates. Finally, 6 records were included in this study. Among these studies, 4 were cost-effectiveness, one was cost analysis, and one was cost-utility. The willingness to pay threshold was between 20,000 and 100,000, and the outcomes were measured with QALY (Quality-adjusted life-years). The reviewed studies showed that telemedicine can improve outcomes such as quality of life and reduce disease costs. Conclusion: The results showed that telemedicine interventions for acute myocardial infarction can be helpful, and cost-effective. However in some cases, it can cause increased costs and may not have a significant difference in effectiveness with other methods because of the condition and stage of the disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abedinejad et al. (2024) conducted a systematic review in Acute myocardial infarction (n=6). Telemedicine vs. Other methods was evaluated on Cost-effectiveness and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Telemedicine interventions for acute myocardial infarction were cost-effective in a review of 6 studies, improving quality-adjusted life-years at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20,000 to 100,000.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: