These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A hospital perspective on the cost-effectiveness of beta-blockade for prophylaxis of atrial fibrillation after cardiothoracic surgery.
    Author: Gillespie EL, White CM, Kluger J, Sahni J, Gallagher R, Coleman CI.
    Journal: Clin Ther; 2005 Dec; 27(12):1963-9. PubMed ID: 16507383.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Prophylactic beta-blockade is the recommended strategy for suppressing atrial fibrillation after cardiothoracic surgery (CTS). However, beta-blockade's impact on the hospital length of stay (LOS) and other economic end points has not been adequately assessed. OBJECTIVE: The present evaluation sought to determine whether beta-blocker use after CTS is a cost-effective strategy for the prevention of postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF). METHODS: This was a piggyback cost-effectiveness analysis of a prospective cohort evaluation comprising 1660 patients undergoing CTS at an urban academic hospital from October 1999 to October 2003. Patients receiving beta-blocker prophylaxis were matched 1:1 with control patients not receiving prophylaxis based on age >70 years, valvular surgery, history of atrial fibrillation, male sex, and use of preoperative digoxin or beta-blockers. The incidence of POAF, total hospital costs, and LOS were compared in each group. Nonparametric bootstrapping analysis was performed to examine the study results as part of a quadrant analysis and to calculate CIs for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. LOS and total costs were also compared in patients with and without POAF, regardless of beta-blocker use. RESULTS: Use of prophylactic beta-blockade was associated with a 17.3 % reduction in the incidence of POAF (P = 0.02) and a 2.2-day reduction in LOS (P = 0.001) compared with nonuse. It also was associated with a 25.7% reduction in total hospital costs compared with nonuse (mean [SD], $30,978 [$33,108] vs $41,700 [$67,369], respectively; P < 0.001), possibly due to a 27.6% reduction in room and board costs ($11,144 [$15,398] vs $14,920 [$22,132]; P < 0.001). In the bootstrapping analysis, 99.0% of the time prophylactic beta-blockade fell into quadrant IV, which indicated superior effectiveness and lower total costs. Regardless of beta-blocker use, patients who developed POAF had a significantly longer LOS compared with those who did not develop POAF (14.7 [19.1] days vs 10.1 [11.1] days, respectively; P < 0.001) and higher total costs ($47,240 [$85,941] vs $32,516 [$34,644]; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: At the institution studied, beta-blocker prophylaxis against POAF after CTS was associated with significantly reduced total costs compared with nonuse of beta-blocker prophylaxis. Patients who developed POAF had significantly increased LOS and total costs compared with those who did not develop POAE An adequately powered prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trial is necessary to confirm the results of this evaluation.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]