Observational studyBMJ open2022
Cost-effectiveness of follow-up invasive coronary angiography after percutaneous coronary stenting: a real-world observational cohort study in Japan.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparative analysis of different biopsy techniques for pancreatic lesions in diagnostic value, safety, and cost-effectiveness.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesFollow-up invasive coronary angiography (FUICA) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been shown to increase the rate of early coronary revascularisation without reducing the incidence of subsequent myocardial infarction or death. However, no studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of FUICA in patients after coronary stenting. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FUICA after PCI.
designRetrospective observational cohort study.
setting497 hospitals. PARTICIPANTS AND
interventionsOverall, 558 patients who underwent coronary artery stenting between April 2014 and March 2015 were matched and included in the invasive angiographic follow-up (AF) group (n=279), in which patients underwent FUICA 6-12 months after PCI, or in the clinical follow-up alone group (CF; n=279) using propensity scores. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was the composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, urgent coronary revascularisation, stroke or hospitalisation for the heart failure. The secondary endpoints included all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, urgent revascularisation, coronary artery bypass grafting, stroke, hospitalisation for the heart failure and any coronary revascularisation after a minimum of 6 months of follow-up.
resultsCosts were calculated as direct medical expenses based on medical fee billing information. The cumulative 3-year incidence of the primary endpoint was 5.3% in the AF group and 4.7% in the CF group (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.47 to 2.20; p=0.98). The total incremental cost at the 3-year endpoint in the AF group was US$1874 higher than that in the CF group (US$8947±US$5684 vs US$7073±US$6360; p≤0.001).
conclusionsFUICA increased the costs but did not improve clinical benefits. Thus, FUICA is not economically more attractive than CF alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000039768.
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.