Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Low-molecular-weight heparins may simplify the management of deep venous thrombosis. A critical clinical issue is whether this more convenient therapy is as safe and effective as treatment with unfractionated heparin. PURPOSE: To compare the safety and efficacy of low-molecular-weight heparins with those of unfractionated heparin for treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis. DATA SOURCES: Reviewers identified studies by searching MEDLINE, reviewing references from retrieved articles, scanning abstracts from conference proceedings, and contacting investigators and pharmaceutical companies. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials that compared a low-molecular-weight heparin preparation with unfractionated heparin for treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers extracted data independently. Reviewers evaluated study quality using a validated four-item instrument. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eleven of 37 studies met inclusion criteria for three major outcomes. Most studies used proper randomization procedures, but only one was double-blinded. Compared with unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparins reduced mortality rates over 3 to 6 months of patient follow-up (odds ratio, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.94]; P = 0.02). For major bleeding complications, the odds ratio favored low-molecular-weight heparins (0.57 [CI, 0.33 to 0.99]; P = 0.047), but the absolute risk reduction was small and not statistically significant (0.61% [CI, -0.04% to 1.26%]; P = 0.07). For preventing thromboembolic recurrences, low-molecular-weight heparins seemed as effective as unfractionated heparin (odds ratio, 0.85 [CI, 0.63 to 1.14]; P > 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: Low-molecular-weight heparin treatment reduces mortality rates after acute deep venous thrombosis. These drugs seem to be as safe as unfractionated heparin with respect to major bleeding complications and appear to be as effective in preventing thromboembolic recurrences

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are remarkably effective in terminating ventricular arrhythmias, but they are expensive and the extent to which they extend life is unknown. The marginal cost-effectiveness of ICDs relative to amiodarone has not been clearly established. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of a third-generation implantable ICD with that of empirical amiodarone treatment for preventing sudden cardiac death in patients at high or intermediate risk. DESIGN: A Markov model was used to evaluate health and economic outcomes of patients who received an ICD, amiodarone, or a sequential regimen that reserved ICD for patients who had an arrhythmia during amiodarone treatment. MEASUREMENTS: Life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years gained, costs, and marginal cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: For the base-case analysis, it was assumed that treatment with an ICD would reduce the total mortality rate by 20% to 40% at 1 year compared with amiodarone and that the ICD generator would be replaced every 4 years. In high-risk patients, if an ICD reduces total mortality by 20%, patients who receive an ICD live for 4.18 quality-adjusted life-years and have a lifetime expenditure of $88,400. Patients receiving amiodarone live for 3.68 quality-adjusted life-years and have a lifetime expenditure of $51,000. Marginal cost-effectiveness of an ICD relative to amiodarone is $74,400 per quality-adjusted life-year saved. If an ICD reduces mortality by 40%, the cost-effectiveness of ICD use is $37,300 per quality-adjusted life-year saved. Both choice of therapy (an ICD or amiodarone) and the cost-effectiveness ratio are sensitive to assumptions about quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Use of an ICD will cost more than $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained unless it reduces all-cause mortality by 30% or more relative to amiodarone. Current evidence does not definitively support or exclude a benefit of this magnitude, but ongoing randomized trials have sufficient statistical power to do so

We demonstrated the use of the World Wide Web for the presentation and explanation of a medical decision model. We put on the web a treatment model developed as part of the Cardiac Arrhythmia and Risk of Death Patient Outcomes Research Team (CARD PORT). To demonstrate the advantages of our web-based presentation, we critiqued both the conventional paper-based and the web-based formats of this decision-model presentation with reference to an accepted published guide to understanding clinical decision models. A web-based presentation provides a useful supplement to paper-based publications by allowing authors to present their model in greater detail, to link model inputs to the primary evidence, and to disseminate the model to peer investigators for critique and collaborative modeling