MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2564591698 · doi:10.1016/j.carrev.2016.12.005

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the orbital atherectomy system: Two-year follow-up

2016· article· en· W2564591698 on OpenAlex
Louis P. Garrison, Marita Zimmermann, Christopher Young, Janna Crittendon, Philippe Généreux

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiovascular revascularization medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCost effectivenessPopulationCoronary artery diseaseAtherectomyAngioplastyEmergency medicineStentQuality-adjusted life yearSurgeryRevascularizationRestenosisInternal medicineMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it