Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33029668›Full record

Trial reportThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2020

Economic evaluation of culprit lesion only PCI vs. immediate multivessel PCI in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial.

Jose Antonio Robles-Zurita, Andrew Briggs, Dikshyanta Rana, Zahidul Quayyum, Keith G Oldroyd, Uwe Zeymer, Steffen Desch, Suzanne de Waha-Thiele, Holger Thiele

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.

Jose Antonio Robles-ZuritaHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, 1 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow, G12 8RZ, UK. JoseAntonio.Robles-Zurita@glasgow.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3862-8798
Andrew BriggsLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Dikshyanta RanaHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, 1 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow, G12 8RZ, UK.
Zahidul QuayyumBRAC James P Grant School of Public Health, BRAC University, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Keith G OldroydWest of Scotland Regional Heart and Lung Centre, Golden Jubilee National Hospital, Glasgow, UK.
Uwe ZeymerKlinikum Ludwigshafen and Institut für Herzinfarktforschung, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Steffen DeschHeart Center Leipzig, University of Leipzig and Leipzig Heart Institute, Leipzig, Germany.
Suzanne de Waha-ThieleUniversity Heart Center Lübeck, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Lübeck, Germany.
Holger ThieleHeart Center Leipzig, University of Leipzig and Leipzig Heart Institute, Leipzig, Germany.
Leipzig Heart Institute · DEUniversity of Glasgow · GBBRAC University · BDGolden Jubilee National Hospital · GBKlinikum Ludwigshafen · DELondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity Hospital Schleswig-Holstein · DE

Funding

European Union 7th Framework Program 602202 (grant agreement) NCT01927549 (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe CULPRIT-SHOCK trial compared two treatment strategies for patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease complicated by cardiogenic shock: (a) culprit vessel only percutaneous coronary intervention (CO-PCI), with additional staged revascularisation if indicated, and (b) immediate multivessel PCI (MV-PCI).

methodsA German societal and national health service perspective was considered for three different analyses. The cost utility analysis (CUA) estimated costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) based on a pre-trial decision analytic model taking a lifelong time horizon. In addition, a within trial CUA estimated QALYs and costs for 1 year. Finally, the cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) used the composite primary outcome, mortality and renal failure at 30-day follow-up, and the within trial costs. Econometric and survival analysis on the trial data was used for the estimation of the model parameters. Subgroup analysis was performed following an economic protocol.

resultsThe lifelong CUA showed an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER), CO-PCI vs. MV-PCI, of €7010 per QALY and a probability of CO-PCI being the most cost-effective strategy > 64% at a €30,000 threshold. The ICER for the within trial CUA was €14,600 and the incremental cost per case of death/renal failure avoided at 30-day follow-up was €9010. Cost-effectiveness improved with patient age and for those without diabetes.

conclusionsThe estimates of cost-effectiveness for CO-PCI vs. MV-PCI have been shown to change depending on the time horizon and type of economic evaluation performed. The results favoured a long-term horizon analysis for avoiding underestimation of QALY gains from the CO-PCI arm.

Indexed as

Coronary Artery DiseaseMyocardial InfarctionPercutaneous Coronary InterventionAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedShock, CardiogenicState MedicineTreatment OutcomeCulprit-shock trialDecision analytic modellingEconomic evaluationPre-trial model

Identifiers

PMID33029668
PMCPMC7561561
OpenAlexW3091993126

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.