Advanced

Hospital utilization and costs for spinal cord stimulation compared with enhanced external counterpulsation for refractory angina pectoris.

Bondesson, Susanne LU ; Jakobsson, Ulf LU ; Edvinsson, Lars LU and Rahm Hallberg, Ingalill (2011) In Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Abstract
Rationale, aims and objectives The aim of this study was to compare acute hospital utilization and costs for patients with refractory angina pectoris undergoing spinal cord stimulation (SCS) versus enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP). Method Seventy-three persons were included in this register study. The acute hospital utilization and costs for SCS and EECP were followed over a period from 12 months before treatment to 24 months after treatment using Patient Administrative Support in Skåne for publicly organized care. Results SCS was significantly more expensive than EECP (P < 0.001). Both SCS and EECP entailed fewer days of hospitalization for coronary artery disease in the 12-month follow-up compared with the 12 months preceding... (More)
Rationale, aims and objectives The aim of this study was to compare acute hospital utilization and costs for patients with refractory angina pectoris undergoing spinal cord stimulation (SCS) versus enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP). Method Seventy-three persons were included in this register study. The acute hospital utilization and costs for SCS and EECP were followed over a period from 12 months before treatment to 24 months after treatment using Patient Administrative Support in Skåne for publicly organized care. Results SCS was significantly more expensive than EECP (P < 0.001). Both SCS and EECP entailed fewer days of hospitalization for coronary artery disease in the 12-month follow-up compared with the 12 months preceding treatment. Patients treated with EECP showed an association between reduced hospital admissions and an improved Canadian Cardiovascular Society classification class compared with 1 year before treatment. A significant reduction in cost was seen in both the SCS group (P = 0.018 and P = 0.001, respectively) and the EECP group (P = 0.002 and P = 0.045, respectively) during 12 and 24 months of follow-up compared with before treatment. There were no significant differences between the groups for hospitalization days or admissions, including costs, at the different follow-ups. Conclusions Cost-effective treatment modalities such as SCS and EECP are valuable additions to medical and revascularization therapy in patients with refractory angina pectoris. Pre-existing conditions and the patient's preferences should be taken in consideration when clinicians choose between treatments for this group of patients. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
publisher
Wiley-Blackwell
external identifiers
  • wos:000314114400020
  • pmid:22040457
  • scopus:84872980799
ISSN
1365-2753
DOI
10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01784.x
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
4fb61305-77b8-4971-8b3a-9c2cb18b16c1 (old id 2221368)
alternative location
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22040457?dopt=Abstract
date added to LUP
2011-12-01 15:12:17
date last changed
2017-01-01 07:33:28
@article{4fb61305-77b8-4971-8b3a-9c2cb18b16c1,
  abstract     = {Rationale, aims and objectives The aim of this study was to compare acute hospital utilization and costs for patients with refractory angina pectoris undergoing spinal cord stimulation (SCS) versus enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP). Method Seventy-three persons were included in this register study. The acute hospital utilization and costs for SCS and EECP were followed over a period from 12 months before treatment to 24 months after treatment using Patient Administrative Support in Skåne for publicly organized care. Results SCS was significantly more expensive than EECP (P &lt; 0.001). Both SCS and EECP entailed fewer days of hospitalization for coronary artery disease in the 12-month follow-up compared with the 12 months preceding treatment. Patients treated with EECP showed an association between reduced hospital admissions and an improved Canadian Cardiovascular Society classification class compared with 1 year before treatment. A significant reduction in cost was seen in both the SCS group (P = 0.018 and P = 0.001, respectively) and the EECP group (P = 0.002 and P = 0.045, respectively) during 12 and 24 months of follow-up compared with before treatment. There were no significant differences between the groups for hospitalization days or admissions, including costs, at the different follow-ups. Conclusions Cost-effective treatment modalities such as SCS and EECP are valuable additions to medical and revascularization therapy in patients with refractory angina pectoris. Pre-existing conditions and the patient's preferences should be taken in consideration when clinicians choose between treatments for this group of patients.},
  author       = {Bondesson, Susanne and Jakobsson, Ulf and Edvinsson, Lars and Rahm Hallberg, Ingalill},
  issn         = {1365-2753},
  language     = {eng},
  month        = {10},
  publisher    = {Wiley-Blackwell},
  series       = {Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice},
  title        = {Hospital utilization and costs for spinal cord stimulation compared with enhanced external counterpulsation for refractory angina pectoris.},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01784.x},
  year         = {2011},
}