Cost-effectiveness of on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting for patients with coronary artery disease: Results from the MASS III trial

Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in postoperative atrial fibrillation: Cost-effectiveness analysis in a single-center, randomized, and prospective trial

Objectives

Postoperative atrial fibrillation is the most common clinical complication after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. It is associated with a high risk of both stroke and death and increases the length of hospital stay and costs. This study aimed to evaluate anticoagulants in postoperative atrial fibrillation.

Methods

A single-center, randomized, prospective, and open-label study. The trial was conducted in Heart Institute at University of São Paulo, Brazil. Patients who developed postoperative atrial fibrillation were randomized to anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or warfarin plus enoxaparin bridging. The primary objective was the cost-effectiveness evaluated by quality-adjusted life years, using the SF-6D questionnaire. The secondary end point was the combination of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, thromboembolic events, infections, bleeding, readmissions, and surgical reinterventions. The safety end point was any bleeding using the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis score. Follow-up period was 30 days after hospital discharge.

Results

We analyzed 324 patients and 53 patients were randomized. The median cost-effectiveness was $1423.20 in the warfarin group versus $586.80 in the rivaroxaban group (P = .002). The median cost was lower in the rivaroxaban group, $450.20 versus $947.30 (P < .001). The secondary outcome was similar in both groups, 44.4% in warfarin group versus 38.5% in the rivaroxaban group (P = .65). Bleeding occured in 25.9% in the warfarin group versus 11.5% in the rivaroxaban group (P = .18).

Conclusions

Rivaroxaban was more cost-effective when compared with warfarin associated with enoxaparin bridging in postoperative atrial fibrillation after isolated coronary artery bypass grafting.

Ten-Year Outcomes of Off-Pump vs On-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in the Department of Veterans Affairs: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The long-term benefits of off-pump ("beating heart") vs on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remain controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the 10-year outcomes and costs of off-pump vs on-pump CABG in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Randomized On/Off Bypass (ROOBY) trial.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

From February 27, 2002, to May 7, 2007, 2203 veterans in the ROOBY trial were randomly assigned to off-pump or on-pump CABG procedures at 18 participating VA medical centers. Per protocol, the veterans were observed for 10 years; the 10-year, post-CABG clinical outcomes and costs were assessed via centralized abstraction of electronic medical records combined with merges to VA and non-VA databases. With the use of an intention-to-treat approach, analyses were performed from May 7, 2017, to December 9, 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

On-pump and off-pump CABG procedures.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The 10-year coprimary end points included all-cause death and a composite end point identifying patients who had died or had undergone subsequent revascularization (ie, percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] or repeated CABG); these 2 end points were measured dichotomously and as time-to-event variables (ie, time to death and time to composite end points). Secondary 10-year end points included PCIs, repeated CABG procedures, changes in cardiac symptoms, and 2018-adjusted VA estimated costs. Changes from baseline to 10 years in post-CABG, clinically relevant cardiac symptoms were evaluated for New York Heart Association functional class, Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina class, and atrial fibrillation. Outcome differences were adjudicated by an end points committee. Given that pre-CABG risks were balanced, the protocol-driven primary and secondary hypotheses directly compared 10-year treatment-related effects.

RESULTS

A total of 1104 patients (1097 men [99.4%]; mean [SD] age, 63.0 [8.5] years) were enrolled in the off-pump group, and 1099 patients (1092 men [99.5%]; mean [SD] age, 62.5 [8.5] years) were enrolled in the on-pump group. The 10-year death rates were 34.2% (n = 378) for the off-pump group and 31.1% (n = 342) for the on-pump group (relative risk, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.99-1.11; P = .12). The median time to composite end point for the off-pump group (4.6 years; IQR, 1.4-7.5 years) was approximately 4.3 months shorter than that for the on-pump group (5.0 years; IQR, 1.8-7.9 years; P = .03). No significant 10-year treatment-related differences were documented for any other primary or secondary end points. After the removal of conversions, sensitivity analyses reconfirmed these findings.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

No off-pump CABG advantages were found for 10-year death or revascularization end points; the time to composite end point was lower in the off-pump group than in the on-pump group. For veterans, in the absence of on-pump contraindications, a case cannot be made for supplanting the traditional on-pump CABG technique with an off-pump approach.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01924442.

The Use of Decision Analytic Modeling in the Evaluation of Surgical Innovations: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this review was to map how decision analytic models are used in surgical innovation (in which research phase, with what aim) and to understand how challenges related to the assessment of surgical interventions are incorporated.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies published in 2018. We included original articles using a decision analytic model to compare surgical strategies. We included modeling studies of surgical innovations. General, innovation, and modeling characteristics were extracted, as were outcomes, recommendations, and handling of challenges related to the assessment of surgical interventions (learning curve, incremental innovation, dynamic pricing, quality variation, organizational impact).

RESULTS

We included 46 studies. The number of studies increased with each research phase, from 4% (n = 2) in the preclinical phase to 40% (n = 20) in phase 3 studies. Eighty-one studies were excluded because they investigated established surgical procedures, indicating that modeling is predominantly applied after the innovation process. Regardless of the research stage, the aim to determine cost-effectiveness was most frequently identified (n = 40, 87%), whereas exploratory aims (eg, exploring when a strategy becomes cost-effective) were less common (n = 9, 20%). Most challenges related to the assessment of surgical interventions were rarely incorporated in models (eg, learning curve [n = 1, 2%], organizational impact [n = 2, 4%], and incremental innovation [n = 1, 2%]), except for dynamic pricing (n = 10, 22%) and quality variation (n = 6, 13%).

CONCLUSIONS

In surgical innovation, modeling is predominantly used in later research stages to assess cost-effectiveness. The exploratory use of modeling seems still largely overlooked in surgery; therefore, the opportunity to inform research and development may not be optimally used.