Cost-Effectiveness of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Optimally Treated Stable Coronary Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The COURAGE (Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive druG Evaluations) trial compared the effect of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) plus optimal medical therapy with optimal medical therapy alone on cardiovascular events in 2287 patients with stable coronary disease. After 4.6 years, there was no difference in the primary end point of death or myocardial infarction, although PCI improved quality of life. The present study evaluated the relative cost and cost-effectiveness of PCI in the COURAGE trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Resource use was assessed by diagnosis-related group for hospitalizations and by current procedural terminology code for outpatient visits and tests and then converted to costs by use of 2004 Medicare payments. Medication costs were assessed with the Red Book average wholesale price. Life expectancy beyond the trial was estimated from Framingham survival data. Utilities were assessed by the standard gamble method. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was expressed as cost per life-year and cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. The added cost of PCI was approximately $10,000, without significant gain in life-years or quality-adjusted life-years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio varied from just over $168,000 to just under $300,000 per life-year or quality-adjusted life-year gained with PCI. A large minority of the distributions found that medical therapy alone offered better outcome at lower cost. The costs per patient for a significant improvement in angina frequency, physical limitation, and quality of life were $154,580, $112,876, and $124,233, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The COURAGE trial did not find the addition of PCI to optimal medical therapy to be a cost-effective initial management strategy for symptomatic, chronic coronary artery disease.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".