ArticleTherapeutics and clinical risk management2023
Real-World Evaluation of a Pharmacoinvasive Strategy for STEMI in Latin America: A Cost-Effective Approach with Short-Term Benefits.
Article in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- [Pharmacoinvasive strategy in Latin America. Why don't we see it as our option?]Archivos peruanos de cardiologia y cirugia cardiovascularArticle
- [Reply yo the letter to the editor : "Keeping an eye on the pharmacoinvasive strategy"].Archivos peruanos de cardiologia y cirugia cardiovascularArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: While pharmacoinvasive strategy (PI) is a safe and effective approach whenever access to primary percutaneous intervention (pPCI) is limited, data on each strategy's economic cost and impact on in-hospital stay are scarce. The objective is to compare the cost-effectiveness of a PI with that of pPCI for the treatment of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in a Latin-American country. Patients and Methods: A total of 1747 patients were included, of whom 470 (26.9%) received PI, 433 (24.7%) pPCI, and 844 (48.3%) NR. The study's primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for PI compared with those for pPCI and non-reperfused (NR), calculated for 30-day major cardiovascular events (MACE), 30-day mortality, and length of stay. Results: For PI, the ICER estimates for MACE showed a decrease of $-35.81/per 1% (95 confidence interval, -114.73 to 64.81) compared with pPCI and a decrease of $-271.60/per 1% (95% CI, -1086.10 to -144.93) compared with NR. Also, in mortality, PI had an ICER decrease of $-129.50 (95% CI, -810.57, 455.06) compared to pPCI and $-165.27 (-224.06, -123.52) with NR. Finally, length of stay had an ICER reduction of -765.99 (-4020.68, 3141.65) and -283.40 (-304.95, -252.76) compared to pPCI and NR, respectively. Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that PI may be a more efficient treatment approach for STEMI in regions where access to pPCI is limited or where patient and system delays are expected.
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.