Key result
Social Security coverage linked to ~81% higher in-hospital MACE vs Government Service in ACS.
Why the study?
The increasing socioeconomic burden of PCI due to rising patient numbers has prompted discussions on optimizing interventions and medical economics.
Observational (n=22,741)
Yes
Odds Ratio: 1.81 (95% CI 1.38–2.37)
Absolute Event Rate: 15.4% vs 10.1%
p-value: p=<0.001
Insurance disparities may signal care inequities in ACS; leaves open whether they alter PCI cost-effectiveness.
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), one of the most prevalent techniques of revascularization, is a procedure that remarkably improves treatment outcomes. However, it consumes large amounts of medical resources and has resulted in an increased socioeconomic burden due to the increasing number of target patients. In recent years, there have been sporadic discussions, both in Japan and other countries, regarding the optimization of interventions and the perspective of medical economics. Based on this, previous studies on PCI-related cost-effectiveness were reviewed in order to consider the current level of medical economics regarding PCI. Using the databases MEDLINE and EMBASE, a survey involving data from original articles and systematic reviews was conducted from January 2010 to August 2022. Conditions were not imposed on the evidence level due to the paucity of studies, although field studies were prioritized over simulation studies. The macro medical economics of acute myocardial infarction treatment, which is the primary target of PCI, were generally at an average level when compared to those in other countries; however, there is room for further improvement in Japan's performance. Revascularization in a population with multivessel coronary artery disease showed that coronary artery bypass graft surgery tended to be more cost-effective than PCI in the long-term setting. However, it was suggested that PCI may be more cost-effective in patients with SYNTAX Score ≤22 or left main artery disease. A cost-effectiveness report for stable angina patients was not in favor of PCI over medical therapy. Moreover, there were some reports showing the medical economic superiority of early myocardial ischemia evaluation, and it was foreseen that active selection of patients will contribute to the improvement of the overall cost-effectiveness of PCI. In order to further improve the socioeconomic significance of PCI in the future, it is necessary to aim for harmony between clinical practice and health economics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Takura et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Coronary artery disease (n=22,741). Social Security (SS) healthcare scheme vs. Government Service (GS) scheme was evaluated on Composite of in-hospital all-cause mortality, post-procedural myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular accident/stroke (MACE) (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.37, p=<0.001). Patients with acute coronary syndrome covered by the Social Security scheme had an 81% higher adjusted risk of in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events compared to those under the Government Service scheme (OR 1.81).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: