Why the study?
The cost-effectiveness of different antithrombotic therapies during nonurgent PCI was uncertain, necessitating comparative analysis.
Is bivalirudin with provisional GP IIb-IIIa inhibitor therapy more cost-effective than UFH with eptifibatide or abciximab in patients undergoing nonurgent PCI?
Is bivalirudin with provisional GP IIb-IIIa inhibitor therapy more cost-effective than UFH with eptifibatide or abciximab in patients undergoing nonurgent PCI?
Bivalirudin with provisional GP IIb-IIIa inhibitor therapy is the most cost-effective antithrombotic strategy for nonurgent PCI compared to UFH with routine GP IIb-IIIa inhibitors.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Summers et al. (2006) studied nonurgent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Bivalirudin with provisional glycoprotein (GP) IIb-IIIa inhibitor therapy vs. Unfractionated heparin (UFH) with eptifibatide, and UFH with abciximab was evaluated on Cost-effectiveness based on probabilities of success or complications (myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization, thrombocytopenia, and bleeding) at 30 days.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: