The cost implications of an early versus delayed invasive strategy in acute coronary syndromes: the TIMACS study

References

• Mehta SR, Cannon CP, Fox KA, et al. Routine vs selective invasive strategies in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials. JAMA 2005;293:2908-17
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bavry AA, Kumbhani DJ, Rassi AN, et al. Benefit of early invasive therapy in acute coronary syndromes: a meta-analysis of contemporary randomized clinical trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;48:1319-25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehta SR, Granger CB, Boden WE, et al. Early versus delayed invasive intervention in acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2009;360:2165-75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare Fee for Service for Parts A & B. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/MedicareFeeforSvcPartsAB/03_MEDPAR.asp#TopOfPage [Last accessed 18 January 2010]
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell JBR, Lee A, McCall NT. Per Case Prospective Payment for Episodes of Hospital Care. Springfield, VA: US Department of Commerce National Technical Infromation Service, 1995
   Google Scholar
• Mahoney EM, Mehta S, Yuan Y, et al. Long-term cost-effectiveness of early and sustained clopidogrel therapy for up to 1 year in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention after presenting with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. Am Heart J 2006;151:219-27
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weintraub WS, Mahoney EM, Lamy A, et al. Long-term cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel given for up to one year in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45:838-45
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond MFSM, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, et al. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publication, 2005:67
   Google Scholar
• Newby LK, Eisenstein EL, Califf RM, et al. Cost effectiveness of early discharge after uncomplicated acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2000;342:749-55
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briggs A, Gray A. The distribution of health care costs and their statistical analysis for economic evaluation. J Health Serv Res Policy 1998;3:233-45
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carpenter J, Bithell J. Bootstrap confidence intervals: when, which, what? A practical guide for medical statisticians. Stat Med 2000;19:1141-64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith KM, Lamy A, Arthur HM, et al. Outcomes and costs of coronary artery bypass grafting: comparison between octogenarians and septuagenarians at a tertiary care centre. Can Med Assoc J 2001;165:759-64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hlatky MA, Douglas PS, Cook NL, et al. Future directions for cardiovascular disease comparative effectiveness research: report of a workshop sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60:569-80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cannon CP, Gibson CM, Lambrew CT, et al. Relationship of symptom-onset-to-balloon time and door-to-balloon time with mortality in patients undergoing angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. JAMA 2000;283:2941-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antman EM, Hand M, Armstrong PW, et al. 2007 Focused update of the ACC/AHA 2004 guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines: developed in collaboration with the Canadian Cardiovascular Society endorsed by the American Academy of Family Physicians: 2007 writing group to review new evidence and update the ACC/AHA 2004 guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction, writing on behalf of the 2004 writing committee. Circulation 2008;117:296-329
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neumann FJ, Kastrati A, Pogatsa-Murray G, et al. Evaluation of prolonged antithrombotic pretreatment (‘cooling-off’ strategy) before intervention in patients with unstable coronary syndromes: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2003;290:1593-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Invasive compared with non-invasive treatment in unstable coronary-artery disease: FRISC II prospective randomised multicentre study. FRagmin and Fast Revascularisation during InStability in Coronary artery disease Investigators. Lancet 1999;354:708-15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox KA, Poole-Wilson PA, Henderson RA, et al. Interventional versus conservative treatment for patients with unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation RITA 3 randomised trial. Randomized Intervention Trial of unstable Angina. Lancet 2002;360:743-51
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Winter RJ, Windhausen F, Cornel JH, et al. Early invasive versus selectively invasive management for acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1095-104
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cannon CP, Weintraub WS, Demopoulos LA, et al. Comparison of early invasive and conservative strategies in patients with unstable coronary syndromes treated with the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofiban. N Engl J Med 2001;344:1879-87
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosamond W, Flegal K, Friday G, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics – 2007 update: a report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Circulation 2007;115:e69-171
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar