Is admission to an intermediate-care unit cost-effective compared to a coronary-care unit for patients with a low probability of acute myocardial infarction?
Admission to an intermediate-care unit is highly cost-effective compared to a coronary-care unit for patients with a low probability of acute myocardial infarction.
We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to examine the clinical and economic consequences of alternatives to admission to a coronary-care unit for patients who have a relatively low probability of acute myocardial infarction. Despite the fact that all our assumptions were slanted to favor the current standard policy of admission to a coronary-care unit, our analysis shows that admission to an intermediate-care unit providing resuscitative facilities and prophylactic lidocaine is highly cost effective. For patients with about a 5 per cent probability of infarction, admission to a coronary-care unit would cost 2. 04 million per life saved and 139, 000 per year of life saved, as compared with intermediate care. For the expected number of such patients annually in the United States, the cost would be 297 million to save 145 lives. At probabilities of infarction up to about 20 per cent, the incremental cost to save a year of life by choosing a coronary-care unit over an intermediate-care unit would be higher than the estimated cost of saving a year of life by treating a 40-year-old man with mild hypertension. Our results suggest that many patients who have a low risk of acute myocardial infarction would be appropriate candidates for admission to an intermediate-care unit.
Fineberg et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: