Pre-hospital ECG for acute coronary syndrome in urban India: A cost-effectiveness analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in India have increased pre-hospital delay and low rates of thrombolytic reperfusion. Use of ECG could reduce pre-hospital delay among patients who first present to a general practitioner (GP). We assessed whether performing ECG on patients with acute chest pain would improve long-term outcomes and be cost-effective.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We created a Markov model of urban Indian patients presenting to a GP with acute chest pain to compare a GP's performing an ECG versus not performing one. Variables describing the accuracy of a GP's referral decision in chest pain and ACS, ACS treatment patterns, the effectiveness of thrombolytic reperfusion, and costs were derived from Indian data where available and other developed world studies. The model was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the intervention in 2007 US dollars per quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Under baseline assumptions, the ECG strategy cost an additional $12.65 per QALY gained compared to no ECG. Sensitivity analyses around the cost of the ECG, cost of thrombolytic, and referral accuracy of the GP yielded ICERs for the ECG strategy ranging between cost-saving and$1124/QALY. All results indicated the intervention is cost-effective under current World Health Organization recommendations.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>While direct presentation to the hospital with acute chest pain is preferable, in urban Indian patients presenting first to a GP, an ECG performed by the GP is a cost-effective strategy to reduce disability and mortality. This strategy should be clinically studied and considered until improved emergency transport services are available.</p

A randomized trial to assess the impact of opinion leader endorsed evidence summaries on the use of secondary prevention strategies in patients with coronary artery disease: the ESP-CAD trial protocol [NCT00175240]

BACKGROUND: Although numerous therapies have been shown to be beneficial in the prevention of myocardial infarction and/or death in patients with coronary disease, these therapies are under-used and this gap contributes to sub-optimal patient outcomes. To increase the uptake of proven efficacious therapies in patients with coronary disease, we designed a multifaceted quality improvement intervention employing patient-specific reminders delivered at the point-of-care, with one-page treatment guidelines endorsed by local opinion leaders ("Local Opinion Leader Statement"). This trial is designed to evaluate the impact of these Local Opinion Leader Statements on the practices of primary care physicians caring for patients with coronary disease. In order to isolate the effects of the messenger (the local opinion leader) from the message, we will also test an identical quality improvement intervention that is not signed by a local opinion leader ("Unsigned Evidence Statement") in this trial. METHODS: Randomized trial testing three different interventions in patients with coronary disease: (1) usual care versus (2) Local Opinion Leader Statement versus (3) Unsigned Evidence Statement. Patients diagnosed with coronary artery disease after cardiac catheterization (but without acute coronary syndromes) will be randomly allocated to one of the three interventions by cluster randomization (at the level of their primary care physician), if they are not on optimal statin therapy at baseline. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients demonstrating improvement in their statin management in the first six months post-catheterization. Secondary outcomes include examinations of the use of ACE inhibitors, anti-platelet agents, beta-blockers, non-statin lipid lowering drugs, and provision of smoking cessation advice in the first six months post-catheterization in the three treatment arms. Although randomization will be clustered at the level of the primary care physician, the design effect is anticipated to be negligible and the unit of analysis will be the patient. DISCUSSION: If either the Local Opinion Leader Statement or the Unsigned Evidence Statement improves secondary prevention in patients with coronary disease, they can be easily modified and applied in other communities and for other target conditions