Abstract

Use of coronary angiography after myocardial infarction has been controversial, with some physicians advocating routine use and others advocating selective use only after documentation of residual myocardial ischemia. The effects of these strategies on economic outcomes have not been established.We analyzed data from a randomized, controlled clinical trial conducted in 17 Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals that enrolled 876 clinically uncomplicated patients 24 to 72 hours after an acute non-Q-wave myocardial infarction. The routine invasive strategy included early coronary angiography with revascularization based on established guidelines. The conservative, ischemia-guided strategy included noninvasive testing with radionuclide ventriculography and exercise thallium scintigraphy, followed by coronary angiography in patients with objective evidence of myocardial ischemia. We measured the cost of hospitalization and outpatient visits and tests during follow-up and calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The conservative, ischemia-guided strategy had lower costs than the routine invasive strategy, both during the initial hospitalization ($14 733 versus $19 256, P<0.001) and after a mean follow-up of 1.9 years ($39 707 versus $41 893, P=0.04). The hazard ratio for death was 0.72 (confidence limits, 0.51 to 1.01) in the conservative strategy. The conservative strategy had lower costs and better outcomes in 76% of 1000 bootstrap replications, and a cost-effectiveness ratio below $50 000 per year of life added in 96% of replications.A conservative, ischemia-guided strategy of selective coronary angiography and revascularization for patients who develop objective evidence of recurrent ischemia is more cost-effective than a strategy of routine coronary angiography after uncomplicated non-Q-wave myocardial infarction.

View details for DOI 10.1161/hc0602.103584

View details for Web of Science ID 000173924600015

View details for PubMedID 11839621