The cost-effectiveness of thrombolysis administered by paramedics.

OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to estimate the expected health outcomes, costs and cost-effectiveness of changing from current practice, where thrombolytic therapy is given in hospital, to paramedic practice where thrombolytic therapy is administered by appropriately trained paramedics (pre-hospital) for STEMI patients. METHODS A decision-analysis microsimulation model was constructed with a 30-day component and a long-term health state transition component. A brief review of the literature was undertaken to obtain data on time-to-needle to populate the model. The primary health outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); secondary outcomes included cardiac events, procedures and survival. Costs to the Australian healthcare system for the rest of life were taken as the analytical perspective. RESULTS On average, STEMI patients gain 0.13 QALYs at an additional life-time cost of $343. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $3428 per life-year gained and $2601 per QALY gained. These estimates were robust to changes in a range of assumptions and parameter values. The most important factor was the time-to-needle - the greater the difference between current practice times and paramedic practice times, the greater the health benefits and lower the cost per QALY (and life-year) gained. A key factor in the model was the substantially lower incidence of heart failure from earlier time-to-needle. Importantly, there was little change in the cost per QALY gained for a wide range of ages; thus, there is no argument to limit thrombolysis by paramedics to above or below an age threshold. CONCLUSIONS Paramedics administering thrombolysis can avert some STEMI deaths and the pre-hospital administration of thrombolysis is good value for money.

[1]  C. Weston,et al.  Impact of specialty of admitting physician and type of hospital on care and outcome for myocardial infarction in England and Wales during 2004-5: observational study , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[2]  K Cooper,et al.  Using simulation to estimate the cost effectiveness of improving ambulance and thrombolysis response times after myocardial infarction , 2005, Emergency Medicine Journal.

[3]  P. Royle,et al.  Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of immediate angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction: systematic review and economic evaluation. , 2005, Health technology assessment.

[4]  T. Walley,et al.  Comparative efficacy of thrombolytics in acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review. , 2003, QJM : monthly journal of the Association of Physicians.

[5]  M. Davies,et al.  Impact of heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction on quality of life: a cross-sectional study comparing common chronic cardiac and medical disorders and a representative adult population. , 2002, European heart journal.

[6]  R. Gibbons,et al.  Clinical characteristics and outcome of patients with early (<2 h), intermediate (2-4 h) and late (>4 h) presentation treated by primary coronary angioplasty or thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. , 2002, European heart journal.

[7]  Peter P. Wakker,et al.  The Utility of Health States After Stroke: A Systematic Review of the Literature , 2001, Stroke.

[8]  H. Pereira,et al.  Reperfusion therapy for acute myocardial infarction with fibrinolytic therapy or combination reduced fibrinolytic therapy and platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition: the GUSTO V randomised trial , 2001, The Lancet.

[9]  InTIME-II Investigators,et al.  Intravenous NPA for the treatment of infarcting myocardium early; InTIME-II, a double-blind comparison of single-bolus lanoteplase vs accelerated alteplase for the treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction. , 2000, European heart journal.

[10]  J. Ottervanger,et al.  Long-term benefit of primary angioplasty compared to thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. , 2000, European heart journal.

[11]  M. Ljosland,et al.  [Prehospital ECG reduces the delay of thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction]. , 2000, Tidsskrift for den Norske laegeforening : tidsskrift for praktisk medicin, ny raekke.

[12]  L. Morrison,et al.  Mortality and prehospital thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction: A meta-analysis. , 2000, JAMA.

[13]  A. Mcguire,et al.  Establishing health state valuations for disease specific states: an example from heart disease. , 2000, Health economics.

[14]  E. Topol A comparison of reteplase with alteplase for acute myocardial infarction. , 1998, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  D Sapoznikov,et al.  Prevention of congestive heart failure by early, prehospital thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction: a long-term follow-up study. , 1998, International journal of cardiology.

[16]  R. Gibbons,et al.  Comparison of primary coronary angioplasty and intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction : A quantitative review , 1997 .

[17]  J. Rawles,et al.  Quantification of the benefit of earlier thrombolytic therapy: five-year results of the Grampian Region Early Anistreplase Trial (GREAT). , 1997, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[18]  M. Simoons,et al.  A clinical trial comparing primary coronary angioplasty with tissue plasminogen activator for acute myocardial infarction. , 1997, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  Eric Boersma,et al.  Early thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction: reappraisal of the golden hour , 1996, The Lancet.

[20]  W. Weaver,et al.  Influence of early prehospital thrombolysis on mortality and event-free survival (the Myocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention [MITI] Randomized Trial). MITI Project Investigators. , 1996, The American journal of cardiology.

[21]  J. Kellett,et al.  Comparison of "Accelerated" Tissue Plasminogen Activator with Streptokinase for Treatment of Suspected Myocardial Infarction , 1995, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[22]  Fibrinolytic Therapy Trialists' Collaborative Group Indications for fibrinolytic therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction: collaborative overview of early mortality and major morbidity results from all randomised trials of more than 1000 patients , 1994, The Lancet.

[23]  J R Beck,et al.  Markov Models in Medical Decision Making , 1993, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[24]  P. Kudenchuk,et al.  Prehospital-initiated vs hospital-initiated thrombolytic therapy. The Myocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention Trial. , 1993, JAMA.

[25]  ISIS-1 Collaborative Group ISIS-3: a randomised comparison of streptokinase vs tissue plasminogen activator vs anistreplase and of aspirin plus heparin vs aspirin alone among 41 299 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction , 1992, The Lancet.

[26]  G. Lamas,et al.  ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction--executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 1999 Guidelines for the Management of Patients Wi , 2004, The Canadian journal of cardiology.

[27]  A Haycox,et al.  Early thrombolysis for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and economic evaluation. , 2003, Health technology assessment.

[28]  J. Kellett COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF ACCELERATED TISSUE PLASMINOGEN ACTIVATOR FOR ACUTE MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION , 1996 .

[29]  Frans Van de Werf,et al.  An international randomized trial comparing four thrombolytic strategies for acute myocardial infarction. , 1993, The New England journal of medicine.