Economic analysis of the use of contrast media during percutaneous coronary interventions in France and Spain

References

• Lecomte P, Mckenna M, Kennedy L et al. International review of the utilisation and cost of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. HEPAC: health economics in prevention and care 2001; 2: 118– 127.
   Google Scholar
• Sculpher MJ, Petticrew M, Kelland JL et al. Resource allocation for chronic stable angina: a systematic review of effectiveness, costs and cost-effectiveness of alternative interventions. Health Technology Assessment 1998; 2: i–iv, 1–176.
   Google Scholar
• Banz K, Schwicker D. Cost-effectiveness of Palmaz–Schatz feminine stenting for patients with coronary artery disease in Spain. Journal of Invasive Cardiology 1997; 9 (Suppl A): 41A–46A.
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira AC, Peter AA, Salerno TA et al. Clinical impact of drug-eluting stents in changing referral practices for coronary surgical revascularization in a tertiary care center. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 2003; 75: 485–489.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Haude M, Konorza TF, Kalnins U et al. Heparin-coated stent placement for the treatment of stenoses in small coronary arteries of symptomatic patients. Circulation 2003; 107: 1265–1270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Idee JM, Corot C. Thrombotic risk associated with the use of iodinated contrast media in interventional cardiology: pathophysiology and clinical aspects. Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology 1999; 13: 613–623.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schräder R. Contrast media selection in interventional cardiology. Journal of Clinical and Basic Cardiology 2001; 4: 245–248.
   Google Scholar
• Hill JA, Cohen MB, Kou WH et al. Iodixanol, a new isosmotic nonionic contrast agent compared with iohexol in cardiac angiography. American Journal of Cardiology 1994; 74: 57–63.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Justesen P, Downes M, Grynne BH et al. Injection-associated pain in femoral arteriography: a European multicenter study comparing safety, tolerability, and efficacy of iodixanol and iopromide. Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology 1997; 20: 251–256.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Skehan SJ, Rasmussen F, Gibney RG et al. A comparison of a non-ionic dimer iodixanol with a non-ionic monomer, iohexol in low dose intravenous urography. British Journal of Radiology 1998; 71: 910–917.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Klow NE, Levorstad K, Berg KJ et al. Iodixanol in cardioangiography in patients with coronary artery disease. Tolerability, cardiac and renal effects. Acta Radiologica 1993; 34: 72–77.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tveit K, Bolz KD, Bolstad B et al. Iodixanol in cardioangiography. A double-blind parallel comparison between iodixanol 320 mg I/ml and ioxaglate 320 mg I/ml. Acta Radiologica 1994; 35: 614–618.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Palmers Y, De Greef D, Grynne BH et al. A double-blind study comparing safety, tolerability and efficacy of iodixanol 320 mgI/ml and ioxaglate 320 mgI/ml in cerebral arteriography. European Journal of Radiology 1993; 17: 203–209.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pugh ND, Sissons GR, Ruttley MS et al. Iodixanol in femoral arteriography (phase III): a comparative double-blind parallel trial between iodixanol and iopromide. Clinical Radiology 1993; 47: 96–99.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rudnick MR, Goldfarb S, Wexler L et al. Nephrotoxicity of ionic and nonionic contrast media in 1196 patients: a randomized trial. The Iohexol Cooperative Study. Kidney International 1995; 47: 254–261.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCullough PA, Wolyn R, Rocher LL et al. Acute renal failure after coronary intervention: incidence, risk factors, and relationship to mortality. American Journal of Medicine 1997; 103: 368–375.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aspelin P, Aubry P, Fransson SG et al. Nephrotoxic effects in high-risk patients undergoing angiography. New England Journal of Medicine 2003; 348: 491–499.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalmers N, Jackson RW. Comparison of iodixanol and iohexol in renal impairment. British Journal of Radiology 1999; 72: 701–703.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davidson CJ, Laskey WK, Hermiller JB et al. Randomized trial of contrast media utilization in high-risk PTCA: the COURT trial. Circulation 2000; 101: 2172–2177.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison JK, Hermiller JB Jr, Vetrovec J et al. A randomized study of 1276 patients undergoing PCI using iodixanol (Visipaque) vs iopamidol (Isovue): comparison of in-hospital and 30 day major adverse cardiac events. The results of the VICC trial. Abstract in Perspective 2003. http://www.mednet.ca/ArticleSpecific. asp?ArticleID=41
   Google Scholar
• Bertrand ME, Esplugas E, Piessens J, Rasch W; for the Visipaque in Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty [VIP] Trial Investigators. Influence of a nonionic, iso-osmolar contrast medium (iodixanol) versus an ionic, low-osmolar contrast medium (ioxaglate) on major adverse cardiac events in patients undergoing percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study. Circulation 2000; 101: 131–136.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• OECD health data 2001. A comparative analyses of 30 countries. OECD Health Policy Unit, Paris, 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Treeage software Inc. Decision analysis by treeage software. Williamstown, MA: Treeage software Inc., 2000.24. Weinstein MC, Fineberg HV. Clinical decision analysis. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders, 1980.
   Google Scholar
• Weinstein MC, Fineberg HV. Clinical decision analysis. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders, 1980.
   Google Scholar
• Siebert U. The role of decision-analytic models in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of coronary heart disease. Zeitschrift fur Kardiologie 2002; 91 (Suppl 3): 144–151.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thaulow E, Jorgensen B, Doyle JJ et al. A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of results from the Coronary Angioplasty Amlodipine Restenosis Study (CAPARES) in Norway and Canada. International Journal of Cardiology 2002; 84: 23–30.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smith SC Jr, Dove JT, Jacobs AK et al. ACC/ AHA guidelines of percutaneous coronary interventions (revision of the 1993 PTCA guidelines) — executive summary. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (committee to revise the 1993 guidelines for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty). Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2001; 37: 2215–2238.
   Google Scholar
• Braunwald E. Unstable angina. A classification. Circulation 1989; 80: 410–414.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campeau L. The Canadian Cardiovascular Society grading of angina pectoris revisited 30 years later. Canadian Journal of Cardiology 2002; 18: 371–379.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Campeau L. Grading of angina pectoris. Circulation 1976; 54: 522–523.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schräder R, Esch I, Ensslen R et al. A randomized trial comparing the impact of a nonionic (Iomeprol) versus an ionic (Ioxaglate) low osmolar contrast medium on abrupt vessel closure and ischemic complications after coronary angioplasty. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 1999; 33: 395–402.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sutton AG, Finn P, Grech ED et al. Early and late reactions after the use of iopamidol 340, ioxaglate 320, and iodixanol 320 in cardiac catheterization. American Heart Journal 2001; 141: 677–683.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Katayama H, Spinazzi A, Fouillet X et al. Iomeprol: current and future profile of a radiocontrast agent. Investigative Radiology 2001; 36: 87–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maier W, Enderlin MF, Bonzel T et al. Audit and quality control in angioplasty in Europe: procedural results of the AQUA Study 1997: assessment of 250 randomly selected coronary interventions performed in 25 centres of five European countries. AQUA Study Group, Nucleus Clinical Issues, Working Group Coronary Circulation, of the European Society of Cardiology. European Heart Journal 1999; 20: 1261–1270.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schwicker D, Banz K. New perspectives on the cost-effectiveness of Palmaz–Schatz feminine coronary stenting, balloon angioplasty, and coronary artery bypass surgery. Journal of Invasive Cardiology 1997; 9 (Suppl A): 7A–16A.
   Google Scholar
• Rothlisberger C, Meier B. Coronary interventions in Europe 1992. The Working Group on Coronary Circulation of the European Society of Cardiology. European Heart Journal 1995; 16: 922–929.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wong JB, Sonnenberg FA, Salem DN, Pauker SG. Myocardial revascularization for chronic stable angina. Analysis of the role of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty based on data available in 1989. Annals of Internal Medicine 1990; 113: 852–871.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jairath N, Weinstein J. The Delphi methodology (Part One): a useful administrative approach. Canadian Journal of Nursing Administration 1994; 7: 29–42.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jairath N, Weinstein J. The Delphi methodology (Part Two): a useful administrative approach. Canadian Journal of Nursing Administration 1994; 7: 7–20.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jones J, Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 1995; 311: 376–380.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fink A, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, Brook RH. Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. American Journal of Public Health 1984; 74: 979–983.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vidal 2002. http://www.vidal.fr [accessed 12 May 2005].
   Google Scholar
• UCANSS and revision 2-2001. Nomenclature générale des actes professionnels/Nomenclature des actes de biologie médicale. 2001.
   Google Scholar
• French PMSI database. http://www. le-pmsi.fr [accessed 12 May 2005].
   Google Scholar
• SOIKOS Spanish Health Costs Database: http://www.soikos.com [accessed 12 May 2005].
   Google Scholar
• Catálogo de Especialidades Farmacéuticas. Colección Consejo 2002. Madrid, Spain: Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Farmacéutocos, 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Offisemp répertoire 2002. Vidal, Paris: 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Nicholson T, McGuire A, Milne R. Cost- utility of enoxaparin compared with unfractionated heparin in unstable coronary artery disease. BMC Cardiovascular Disorders 2001; 1: 2. A. Banz K, Schwicker D. Cost-effectiveness of Palmaz–Schatz feminine stenting for patients with coronary artery disease in France. Journal of Invasive Cardiology 1997; 9 (Suppl A): 17A–22 A. Sacristan JA, Navarro O, Huete T, Iniguez Cost-effectiveness of the monoclonal antibody c7E3 in high-risk coronary angioplasty in Spain. British Journal of Medical Economics 1996; 10: 169–183.
   Google Scholar
• Himbert D, Simon-Loriere Y, Juliard JM et al. [Evaluation of the cost of a systematic early reperfusion of the infarction artery by primary or salvage angioplasty]. Annales de Cardiologie et d’angeiologie 1997; 46: 569– 576 [in French].
   Google Scholar
• Detournay B, Huet X, Fagnani F, Montalescot G. Economic evaluation of enoxaparin sodium versus heparin in unstable angina. A French sub-study of the ESSENCE trial. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 18: 83–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Análisis y desarrollo de los GDR en el Sistema Nacional de Salud Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo, Madrid, 1999. http://www.msc.es/sns/sistemas/ nformacion/analisis/pdf/analisis.pdf
   Google Scholar