Percutaneous revascularization for ischemic left ventricular dysfunction: Cost-effectiveness analysis of the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial

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

Arrhythmia and death following percutaneous revascularization in ischemic left ventricular dysfunction: Prespecified analyses from the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial

BACKGROUND: Ventricular arrhythmia is an important cause of mortality in patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction. Revascularization with coronary artery bypass graft or percutaneous coronary intervention is often recommended for these patients before implantation of a cardiac defibrillator because it is assumed that this may reduce the incidence of fatal and potentially fatal ventricular arrhythmias, although this premise has not been evaluated in a randomized trial to date. METHODS: Patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction, extensive coronary disease, and viable myocardium were randomly assigned to receive either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) plus optimal medical and device therapy (OMT) or OMT alone. The composite primary outcome was all-cause death or aborted sudden death (defined as an appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy or a resuscitated cardiac arrest) at a minimum of 24 months, analyzed as time to first event on an intention-to-treat basis. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular death or aborted sudden death, appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy or sustained ventricular arrhythmia, and number of appropriate ICD therapies. RESULTS: Between August 28, 2013, and March 19, 2020, 700 patients were enrolled across 40 centers in the United Kingdom. A total of 347 patients were assigned to the PCI+OMT group and 353 to the OMT alone group. The mean age of participants was 69 years; 88% were male; 56% had hypertension; 41% had diabetes; and 53% had a clinical history of myocardial infarction. The median left ventricular ejection fraction was 28%; 53.1% had an implantable defibrillator inserted before randomization or during follow-up. All-cause death or aborted sudden death occurred in 144 patients (41.6%) in the PCI group and 142 patients (40.2%) in the OMT group (hazard ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.82–1.30]; P =0.80). There was no between-group difference in the occurrence of any of the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: PCI was not associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality or aborted sudden death. In patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, PCI is not beneficial solely for the purpose of reducing potentially fatal ventricular arrhythmias. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01920048

Effect of remote ischaemic conditioning on clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI): a single-blind randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Remote ischaemic conditioning with transient ischaemia and reperfusion applied to the arm has been shown to reduce myocardial infarct size in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). We investigated whether remote ischaemic conditioning could reduce the incidence of cardiac death and hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months. METHODS: We did an international investigator-initiated, prospective, single-blind, randomised controlled trial (CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI) at 33 centres across the UK, Denmark, Spain, and Serbia. Patients (age >18 years) with suspected STEMI and who were eligible for PPCI were randomly allocated (1:1, stratified by centre with a permuted block method) to receive standard treatment (including a sham simulated remote ischaemic conditioning intervention at UK sites only) or remote ischaemic conditioning treatment (intermittent ischaemia and reperfusion applied to the arm through four cycles of 5-min inflation and 5-min deflation of an automated cuff device) before PPCI. Investigators responsible for data collection and outcome assessment were masked to treatment allocation. The primary combined endpoint was cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02342522) and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Nov 6, 2013, and March 31, 2018, 5401 patients were randomly allocated to either the control group (n=2701) or the remote ischaemic conditioning group (n=2700). After exclusion of patients upon hospital arrival or loss to follow-up, 2569 patients in the control group and 2546 in the intervention group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At 12 months post-PPCI, the Kaplan-Meier-estimated frequencies of cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure (the primary endpoint) were 220 (8·6%) patients in the control group and 239 (9·4%) in the remote ischaemic conditioning group (hazard ratio 1·10 [95% CI 0·91-1·32], p=0·32 for intervention versus control). No important unexpected adverse events or side effects of remote ischaemic conditioning were observed. INTERPRETATION: Remote ischaemic conditioning does not improve clinical outcomes (cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure) at 12 months in patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation, University College London Hospitals/University College London Biomedical Research Centre, Danish Innovation Foundation, Novo Nordisk Foundation, TrygFonden