Cost-effectiveness of targeting patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for therapy with bivalirudin versus heparin monotherapy according to predicted risk of bleeding.

@article{Amin2010CosteffectivenessOT,
  title={Cost-effectiveness of targeting patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for therapy with bivalirudin versus heparin monotherapy according to predicted risk of bleeding.},
  author={Amit P. Amin and Steven P. Marso and Sunil V. Rao and John C. Messenger and Paul Chan and John A. House and Kevin Kennedy and Katherine Robertus and David Jacques Cohen and Elizabeth M. Mahoney},
  journal={Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes},
  year={2010},
  volume={3 4},
  pages={358-65}
}
BACKGROUND Although bivalirudin compared with unfractionated heparin with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors reduces bleeding and hospitalization costs in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), little is known about the economic impact of bivalirudin versus heparin alone and at what threshold of procedural bleeding risk bivalirudin would be considered cost-effective. METHODS AND RESULTS A validated model was used to predict risk of major bleeding for 81,628 National… CONTINUE READING