Cost-effectiveness analysis of the orbital atherectomy system: Two-year follow-up
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The presence of coronary artery calcification is associated with a significant burden of coronary artery disease along with being a predictor of increased adverse ischemic events. The Diamondback 360® Coronary Orbital Atherectomy System (OAS) is a novel device designed to facilitate treatment of calcified lesions. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of OAS compared to standard treatment. METHODS: A decision tree model utilizing ORBIT II clinical trial and Medicare data from the health system perspective was constructed. Target population was U.S. patients age≥65 with coronary atherosclerosis due to a calcified coronary lesion, both inpatients and outpatients, and combined over a time horizon of two years for costs and lifetime for mortality. OAS was compared to standard treatment (use of balloon angioplasty to prepare stent-placement site). Outcomes were costs of index event and target vessel revascularization in two years, life-years gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: On average, OAS was projected to cost $1702 less than standard treatment for inpatients, $2360 more than standard treatment for outpatients, and $959 more than standard treatment overall; the projected mortality reduction implies 0.41 life-years gained. Compared to standard treatment, OAS was dominant in an inpatient setting, had an ICER of $5759 per QALY in the outpatient setting, and had an ICER of $2340 per QALY overall. These ICERs are below the accepted threshold for highly cost-effective interventions of $50,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to standard treatment, OAS is likely to be cost-effective and was projected to be cost-saving in an inpatient setting. SUMMARY: A decision tree from the health system perspective was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Diamondback 360® Coronary Orbital Atherectomy System (OAS), a novel device designed to facilitate treatment of calcified lesions. OAS was projected to cost $1702 less than standard treatment for inpatients, $2360 more than standard treatment for outpatients, and $959 more than standard treatment overall; the projected mortality reduction implies 0.41 life-years gained. Compared to standard treatment, OAS was dominant in an inpatient setting, had an ICER of $5759 per QALY in the outpatient setting, and overall had an ICER of $2340 per QALY.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».