Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37929587›Full record

Trial reportCirculation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes2024

Percutaneous Revascularization for Ischemic Left Ventricular Dysfunction: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the REVIVED-BCIS2 Trial.

Carlos Chivardi, Holly Morgan, Mark J Sculpher, Tim Clayton, Richard Evans, Matthew Dodd, Mark Petrie, Christopher A Rinaldi, Peter O'Kane, Louise Brown and 3 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01920048 (REVascularisation for Ischaemic VEntricular Dysfunction), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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.

NCT01920048 nacompletednot on this map

REVascularisation for Ischaemic VEntricular Dysfunction (REVIVED): a Randomized Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (With Optimal Medical Therapy) Versus Optimal Medical Therapy Alone for Treatment of Heart Failure Secondary to Coronary Disease

TypeinterventionalSponsorKing's College LondonRan2013 to 2022Enrolled700ConditionsIschemic CardiomyopathyArmsPercutaneous Coronary Intervention, Drug Therapy for Heart Failure, Device Therapy for Heart Failure
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Heart Failure: Worth the Cost?Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 9 institutions in 3 countries.

Carlos ChivardiCentre for Health Economics, University of York, United Kingdom (C.C., M.J.S., P.S.).ORCID 0000-0003-0470-3371
Holly MorganBritish Heart Foundation Center of Research Excellence, School of Cardiovascular Medicine and Sciences, King's College London, United Kingdom (H.M., D.P.).ORCID 0000-0002-6636-6174
Mark J SculpherCentre for Health Economics, University of York, United Kingdom (C.C., M.J.S., P.S.).
Tim ClaytonClinical Trials Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom (T.C., R.E., M.D.).ORCID 0000-0002-1266-3288
Richard EvansClinical Trials Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom (T.C., R.E., M.D.).ORCID 0000-0003-4101-2131
Matthew DoddClinical Trials Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom (T.C., R.E., M.D.).ORCID 0000-0002-6207-6604
Mark PetrieCardiology Department, Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Sciences, University of Glasgow, United Kingdom (M.P.).ORCID 0000-0002-6333-9496
Christopher A Rinaldi
Peter O'KaneCardiology Department, Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospital, Bournemouth, United Kingdom (P.O.).ORCID 0000-0001-5245-4547
Louise BrownMRC Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, United Kingdom (L.B.).ORCID 0000-0003-2827-6634
Divaka PereraBritish Heart Foundation Center of Research Excellence, School of Cardiovascular Medicine and Sciences, King's College London, United Kingdom (H.M., D.P.).ORCID 0000-0001-6362-1291
Pedro SaramagoCentre for Health Economics, University of York, United Kingdom (C.C., M.J.S., P.S.).ORCID 0000-0001-9063-8590
REVIVED-BCIS2 Investigators
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBSt Thomas' Hospital · GBMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL · GBUniversity of Glasgow · GBThe Centre for Health (New Zealand) · NZUniversity of London · GBRoyal Bournemouth Hospital · GBGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBKing's College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is frequently undertaken in patients with ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction. The REVIVED (Revascularization for Ischemic Ventricular Dysfunction)-BCIS2 (British Cardiovascular Society-2) trial concluded that PCI did not reduce the incidence of all-cause death or heart failure hospitalization; however, patients assigned to PCI reported better initial health-related quality of life than those assigned to optimal medical therapy (OMT) alone. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of PCI+OMT compared with OMT alone.

methodsREVIVED-BCIS2 was a prospective, multicenter UK trial, which randomized patients with severe ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction to either PCI+OMT or OMT alone. Health care resource use (including planned and unplanned revascularizations, medication, device implantation, and heart failure hospitalizations) and health outcomes data (EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level questionnaire) on each patient were collected at baseline and up to 8 years post-randomization. Resource use was costed using publicly available national unit costs. Within the trial, mean total costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated from the perspective of the UK health system. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using estimated mean costs and QALYs in both groups. Regression analysis was used to adjust for clinically relevant predictors.

resultsBetween 2013 and 2020, 700 patients were recruited (mean age: PCI+OMT=70 years, OMT=68 years; male (%): PCI+OMT=87, OMT=88); median follow-up was 3.4 years. Over all follow-ups, patients undergoing PCI yielded similar health benefits at higher costs compared with OMT alone (PCI+OMT: 4.14 QALYs, £22 352; OMT alone: 4.16 QALYs, £15 569; difference: -0.015, £6782). For both groups, most health resource consumption occurred in the first 2 years post-randomization. Probabilistic results showed that the probability of PCI being cost-effective was 0.

conclusionsA minimal difference in total QALYs was identified between arms, and PCI+OMT was not cost-effective compared with OMT, given its additional cost. A strategy of routine PCI to treat ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction does not seem to be a justifiable use of health care resources in the United Kingdom. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920048.

Indexed as

Coronary Artery DiseaseHeart FailurePercutaneous Coronary InterventionVentricular Dysfunction, LeftAgedCost-Effectiveness AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleProspective StudiesQuality of LifeTreatment Outcomecoronary artery diseaseheart failurehumansmyocardial revascularizationpercutaneous coronary intervention

Identifiers

PMID37929587
PMCPMC10782932
OpenAlexW4388413975

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.