MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Percutaneous Revascularization for Ischemic Left Ventricular Dysfunction: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the REVIVED-BCIS2 Trial

2023· article· en· W4388413975 on OpenAlexaff
Carlos Chivardi, Holly Morgan, Mark Sculpher, Tim Clayton, Richard Evans, Matthew Dodd, Mark C. Petrie, Christopher A. Rinaldi, Peter O’Kane, Louise Brown, Divaka Perera, Pedro Saramago, Amedeo Chiribiri, Gerry Carr‐White, Antonis N. Pavlidis, Simon Redwood, Brian Clapp, Haseeb Rahman, Natalia Briceno, Sophie Arnold, Amy Raynsford, Karen M. Wilson, Lucy Clack, Margaret McEntegart, Stuart Watkins, Aadil Shaukat, Paul Rocchiccioli, Marion McAdam, Elizabeth McPherson, Louise Cowan, Marie Wood, Roshan Weerackody, Ceri H. Davies, E. O’Brian Smith, Bhavik Modi, Bindu Mathew, Oliver Mitchelmore, Rita Adrego, Mervyn Andiapen, Jehangir Din, Sarah Kennard, Sarah Orr, Cathie Purnell, John P. Greenwood, Jonathan Blaxill, Abdul Mozid, Michelle A. Anderson, Kathryn Somers, Lana Dixon, Simon Walsh, Mark Spence, P. E. Glover, Caroline Brown, George Amin‐Youssef, Ajay M. Shah, Theresa A. McDonagh, Jonathan Byrne, Nilesh Pareek, Jonathan Breeze, Catherine Antao, Kalpa De Silva, Julian Strange, Tom Johnson, Angus K. Nightingale, Laura Gallego, Cristina Medina, Anthony Gershlick, Andrew Ladwiniec, Iain Squire, Joanna Davison, Kris Kenmuir-Hogg, James Spratt, Claudia Cosgrove, Rupert Williams, Sam Firoozi, Pitt Lim, Giovanna Bonato, Vennessa Sookhoo, Dwayne Conway, Paul Brooksby, Judith Wright, Donna Exley, James Cotton, Richard Horton, Stella Metherell, Andrew Smallwood, Kai Hogrefe, Adrian S. H. Cheng, Charmaine Beirnes, Sian Sidgwick, Tim Lockie, Niket Patel, Roby Rakhit, Nina Davies, Angelique Smit, Fozia Ahmed, Cara Hendry, Farzin Fath-Odoubadi, Douglas Fraser, Mamas Mamas, Anu Oommen, Thabitha Charles, Miles Behan, Alan G. Japp, Belinda Rif, Nicholas Jenkins, Sam McClure, Pauline Oates, Karen L. M. Martin, Eltigani Abdelaal, Jaydeep Sarma, Sanjay Shastri, Jo Riley, Sarra Giannopoulou, Sophie Quinn, Pradeep Magapu, Rod Stables, David H. Wright, Janet Barton, Nichola Clarkson, Michael Mahmoudi, Andrew Flett, Nick Curzen, Judith Radmore, Sam Gough, Andrew Ludman, Hibba Kurdi, Samantha Keenan, Prithwish Banerjee, Luke Tapp, Nigel Edwards, Catherine Gibson, Neville Kukreja, Mary Ellen Lynch, Claire Barratt, Mark de Belder, Jeet Thambyrajah, Neil Swanson, Cath Richardson, Bev Atkinson, Girish Viswanathan, Darren Waugh, Helen Routledge, Jasper Trevelyan, Angela Doughty, Nick Pegge, Sukhbir Dhamrait, Sally Moore, Gavin Galasko, Christopher Cassidy, Natalia Waddington, Tim Edwards, Javed Iqbal, Fraser Witherow, Jenny Birch, Melanie J. Munro, Timothy N. C. Wells, Manas Sinha, Linda Frost, Kaeng Lee, James Beattie, Mike Pitt, Alan Chung, Steve Ramcharitar, Laura McCafferty, Thomas N. Martin, John Irving, Zaid Iskandar, Anita Hutcheon, Julian Gunn, Abdallah Al‐Mohammad, Michael Agyemang, H. Griffiths, Paul R. Kalra, Serena Howe, Tim J.B. Gray, Jolanta Sobolewska, Louise Morby, Jason Glover, James Beynon, Janet S. Knight, Paul Das, Chris Bellamy, Emily Harman, Mr Maurice Pye, Simon Megarry, Yvonne McGill, H Redfearn

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
FundersKing's College LondonBritish Heart FoundationNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineConventional PCIPercutaneous coronary interventionRevascularizationRandomizationRandomized controlled trialCardiologyInternal medicineHeart failureEmergency medicineMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is frequently undertaken in patients with ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction. The REVIVED (Revascularization for Ischemic Ventricular Dysfunction)-BCIS2 (British Cardiovascular Society-2) trial concluded that PCI did not reduce the incidence of all-cause death or heart failure hospitalization; however, patients assigned to PCI reported better initial health-related quality of life than those assigned to optimal medical therapy (OMT) alone. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of PCI+OMT compared with OMT alone. METHODS: REVIVED-BCIS2 was a prospective, multicenter UK trial, which randomized patients with severe ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction to either PCI+OMT or OMT alone. Health care resource use (including planned and unplanned revascularizations, medication, device implantation, and heart failure hospitalizations) and health outcomes data (EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level questionnaire) on each patient were collected at baseline and up to 8 years post-randomization. Resource use was costed using publicly available national unit costs. Within the trial, mean total costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated from the perspective of the UK health system. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using estimated mean costs and QALYs in both groups. Regression analysis was used to adjust for clinically relevant predictors. RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2020, 700 patients were recruited (mean age: PCI+OMT=70 years, OMT=68 years; male (%): PCI+OMT=87, OMT=88); median follow-up was 3.4 years. Over all follow-ups, patients undergoing PCI yielded similar health benefits at higher costs compared with OMT alone (PCI+OMT: 4.14 QALYs, £22 352; OMT alone: 4.16 QALYs, £15 569; difference: -0.015, £6782). For both groups, most health resource consumption occurred in the first 2 years post-randomization. Probabilistic results showed that the probability of PCI being cost-effective was 0. CONCLUSIONS: A minimal difference in total QALYs was identified between arms, and PCI+OMT was not cost-effective compared with OMT, given its additional cost. A strategy of routine PCI to treat ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction does not seem to be a justifiable use of health care resources in the United Kingdom. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920048.

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 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 score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and OutcomesSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207