Abstract

Obviously, conservative therapy would be less expensive than invasive therapy if patients were held in the conservative category and received only medical therapy along with exercise test with thallium. However, based on the TIMI 3 B outcomes, costs are similar (but not equal) even if one attempts a conservative strategy since a significant number of patients in the early conservative arm underwent angiography (64 patients) and PTCA (26 patients) or surgery (24 patients) and the number of days for rehospitalization was greater in the early conservative than in the early invasive group. I believe the TIMI 3 B study reflects the reality of clinical practice in 1995. It seems to me that either strategy is acceptable both from the medical and economic outcome standpoints. Given the model used here, I do not think that the early invasive strategy will ever be cheaper than the early conservative strategy unless all of the patients in the early conservative strategy who eventually are revascularized have CABG, and all of the patients in the early invasive strategy who are revascularized have PTCA.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.