Search

Item does not contain fulltext OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess sex differences in chest pain after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with newer generation drug-eluting stents (DES). BACKGROUND: Sex-based data on chest pain after PCI with DES are scarce. METHODS: The authors performed a patient-level pooled analysis of the TWENTE and DUTCH PEERS randomized trials, in which patients were treated with newer generation permanent polymer-coated DES. At 1 and 2 years, clinical follow-up was available in 99.8% and patient-reported chest pain data in 94.1% and 93.6%, respectively. RESULTS: Among all 3,202 patients, the 871 (27.2%) women were older (67.5 +/- 10.2 years vs. 62.8 +/- 10.6 years; p < 0.001) and had more cardiovascular risk factors: diabetes (24.2% vs. 17.8%; p < 0.001), hypertension (63.6% vs. 51.6%; p < 0.001), and positive family history (54.5% vs. 50.1%; p = 0.03). At 1- and 2-year follow-up, women reported more clinically relevant chest pain (16.3% vs. 10.5%; p < 0.001, and 17.2% vs. 11.1%; p < 0.001, respectively). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that female sex independently predicted clinically relevant chest pain at 1- and 2-year follow-up both during daily activities and at minimum physical exertion/at rest (1 year adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2 to 2.4; p = 0.002; and adjusted OR: 1.8; 95% CI: 1.3 to 2.5; p < 0.001; 2-year adjusted OR: 1.8; 95% CI: 1.3 to 2.6; p < 0.001; and adjusted OR: 1.7; 95% CI: 1.3 to 2.3; p = 0.001). Nevertheless, the 2-year rates of death, myocardial infarction, revascularization, stent thrombosis, and various composite clinical endpoints were similar for both sexes. CONCLUSIONS: Although the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events was low and similar for both sexes, women showed a statistically significantly higher prevalence of clinically relevant chest pain, which might be largely related to mechanisms other than epicardial coronary obstruction.

Contains fulltext : 88177.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) 01 april 2010

Item does not contain fulltext OBJECTIVE: To determine if a pre-assessment can be used to establish whether cost-effectiveness results would meet the actual information needs of Dutch healthcare decision makers. METHODS: Two recent studies in rehabilitation medicine served as study material. Based on Wholey, a limited pre-assessment was performed in which the potential impact of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) results on intended users' decision making was assessed. Desk research and semi-structured interviews with several intended users of CEA results were performed. These included general practitioners, representatives of health insurance companies, the Health Care Insurance Board (CvZ), and medical guidelines committees. RESULTS: In day-to-day decision making of the interviewed decision makers, a cost-effectiveness criterion seemed to be of limited importance. Instead, results from clinical effectiveness studies and budget impact studies appeared to be sufficient. CvZ, however, preferred relative cost-effectiveness to be a criterion for inclusion in future reimbursement guidelines. In both cases the limited pre-assessments changed the expectations of the investigators regarding decision-making impact of an economic evaluation. CONCLUSION: This study revealed that the use of CEA results for Dutch micro- and meso-level healthcare decision making is not self-evident. The main purpose of CEA results is to support health policy making and planning at a macroeconomic level. Pre-assessment can be a valuable tool in designing a CEA to support the actual information needs of the decision makers.

Item does not contain fulltext 6 p.