| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Glasbey, JC, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Bravo, L, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 5. |
- Tabiri, S, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Bufe, Alexander, et al.
(författare)
-
Costs of bleeds relating to acute coronary syndrome therapies.
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Journal of Medical Economics. - : Informa Healthcare. - 1369-6998 .- 1941-837X. ; 13:2, s. 236-240
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To estimate the costs to manage selected types of bleeding complications in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treated with antithrombotics, including antiplatelet, and fibrinolytic therapies: decrease in haemoglobin >3 g/dL, puncture site, and bleeding requiring transfusion of blood products.Methods: Retrospective chart reviews of ACS patients experiencing decrease in Hb, puncture site, or bleeding requiring transfusion were conducted in hospitals in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Sweden to determine the total length of stay (LOS), stay post-bleeding, procedures to identify the extent of bleeding, number and types of transfusion products, patient demographics, reason for hospital admission and disposition upon discharge. Country-specific costs were applied to estimate the average cost per patient by type of bleeding event.Results: Records of 158 ACS patients with the bleeding complications were examined (26.9% decrease in Hb, 35.5% puncture site, and 37.8% transfusion). The average LOS was 10.6 days for decreasing Hb, 7.7 days for puncture site bleeding, and 11.3 days for patients receiving transfusions due to these bleeding events. The average costs per patient ranged between €3,986 and €10,252. The LOS ranged widely both within and across countries.Limitations: The study has a small sample size and costs are confounded by co-morbidities.Conclusions: The estimated costs for decreasing Hb, puncture site bleeding and bleeding resulting in transfusions provide a tool for researchers to conduct economic analyses of bleeding events associated with therapies for ACS.
|
|
| 8. |
- Jolly, Sanjit S., et al.
(författare)
-
Procedural Volume and Outcomes With Radial or Femoral Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0735-1097. ; 63:10, s. 954-963
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives The study sought to evaluate the relationship between procedural volume and outcomes with radial and femoral approach. Background RIVAL (RadIal Vs. femorAL) was a randomized trial of radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography/intervention (N = 7,021),which overall did not show a difference in primary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or non-coronary artery bypass graft major bleeding. Methods In pre-specified subgroup analyses, the hazard ratios for the primary outcome were compared among centers divided by tertiles and among individual operators. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine the independent effect of center and operator volumes after adjusting for other variables. Results In high-volume radial centers, the primary outcome was reduced with radial versus femoral access (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28 to 0.87) but not in intermediate-(HR: 1.23; 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.72) or low-volume centers (HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.31; interaction p 0.021). High-volume centers enrolled a higher proportion of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). After adjustment for STEMI, the benefit of radial access persisted at high-volume radial centers. There was no difference in the primary outcome between radial and femoral access by operator volume: high-volume operators (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.28), intermediate (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.27), and low (HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.65; interaction p 0.536). However, in a multivariable model, overall center volume and radial center volume were independently associated with the primary outcome but not femoral center volume (overall percutaneous coronary intervention volume HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.88 to 0.96; radial volume HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.97; and femoral volume HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.07; p 0.98). Conclusions Procedural volume and expertise are important, particularly for radial percutaneous coronary intervention. (A Trial of Trans-radial Versus Trans-femoral Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [PCI] Access Site Approach in Patients With Unstable Angina or Myocardial Infarction Managed With an Invasive Strategy [RIVAL]; NCT01014273) (C) 2014 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
|
|
