ArticleBMJ open2021
Estimating the economic impacts of percutaneous coronary intervention in Australia: a registry-based cost burden study.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Economic drivers and systemic disparities in invasive coronary angiography: Insights from a national claims database.PloS one · 2026Article
- Microcosting analysis of percutaneous coronary intervention with and without intracoronary imaging in an Irish tertiary referral centre.Open heart · 2025Article
- Healthcare-related carbon footprinting-lower impact of a coronary stenting compared to a coronary surgery pathway.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- In-hospital outcomes by insurance type among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions for acute myocardial infarction in New South Wales public hospitals.International journal for equity in health · 2023Article
- Cost-utility analysis of a supervised exercise intervention for women with early-stage endometrial cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023Article
- Article
- Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn this study, we sought to evaluate the costs of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) across a variety of indications in Victoria, Australia, using a direct per-person approach, as well as to identify key cost drivers.
designA cost-burden study of PCI in Victoria was conducted from the Australian healthcare system perspective.
settingA linked dataset of patients admitted to public hospitals for PCI in Victoria was drawn from the Victorian Cardiac Outcomes Registry (VCOR) and the Victorian Admitted Episodes Dataset. Generalised linear regression modelling was used to evaluate key cost drivers. From 2014 to 2017, 20 345 consecutive PCIs undertaken in Victorian public hospitals were captured in VCOR. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Direct healthcare costs attributed to PCI, estimated using a casemix funding method.
resultsKey cost drivers identified in the cost model included procedural complexity, patient length of stay and vascular access site. Although the total procedural cost increased from $A55 569 740 in 2014 to $A72 179 656 in 2017, mean procedural costs remained stable over time ($A12 521 in 2014 to $A12 185 in 2017) after adjustment for confounding factors. Mean procedural costs were also stable across patient indications for PCI ($A9872 for unstable angina to $A15 930 for ST-elevation myocardial infarction) after adjustment for confounding factors.
conclusionsThe overall cost burden attributed to PCIs in Victoria is rising over time. However, despite increasing procedural complexity, mean procedural costs remained stable over time which may be, in part, attributed to changes in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.