↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness of a high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T systematic screening strategy compared with usual care to identify patients with peri-operative myocardial injury after major noncardiac…

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Anaesthesiology, January 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cost-effectiveness of a high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T systematic screening strategy compared with usual care to identify patients with peri-operative myocardial injury after major noncardiac surgery
Published in
European Journal of Anaesthesiology, January 2023
DOI 10.1097/eja.0000000000001793
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ekaterine Popova, Pablo Alonso-Coello, Jesús Álvarez-García, Pilar Paniagua-Iglesias, Montserrat Rué-Monné, Miguel Vives-Borrás, Adria Font-Gual, Ignasi Gich-Saladich, Cecilia Martínez-Bru, Jordi Ordóñez-Llanos, Misericordia Carles-Lavila

Abstract

About 300 million surgeries are performed worldwide annually and this figure is increasing constantly. Peri-operative myocardial injury (PMI), detected by cardiac troponin (cTn) elevation, is a common cardiac complication of noncardiac surgery, strongly associated with short- and long-term mortality. Without systematic peri-operative cTn screening, most cases of PMI may go undetected. However, little is known about cost effectiveness of a systematic PMI screening strategy with high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) after noncardiac surgery. To assess, in patients with high cardiovascular risk, the cost-effectiveness of a systematic screening strategy using a hs-cTnT assay, to identify patients with PMI after major noncardiac surgery, compared with usual care. Cost-effectiveness analysis; single centre prospective cohort study. Spanish University Hospital. From July 2016 to March 2019, we included 1477 consecutive surgical patients aged ≥65 or if <65, with documented history of cardiovascular disease or impaired renal function, who underwent major noncardiac surgery and required at least an overnight hospital stay. We excluded patients aged <65 years without cardiovascular disease, undergoing minor surgery, or with an expected <24 h hospital stays. We conducted a decision-tree analysis, comparing a systematic screening strategy measuring hs-cTnT before surgery, and at the 2nd and 3rd days after surgery vs. a usual care strategy. We considered a third-party payer perspective and the outcomes of both strategies in the short-term (30 days follow-up). Information about costs was expressed in Euros-2021. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the systematic hs-cTnT strategy, defined as the expected cost per any additional PMI detected, and explored the robustness of the model using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. ICER of the systematic hs-cTnT screening strategy. The ICER was €425 per any additionally detected PMI. The deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that a 15% variation in costs, and a 1% variation in the predictive values, had a minor impact over the ICER, except in case of the negative predictive value of the systematic hs-cTnT screening strategy. Monte Carlo simulations (probabilistic sensitivity analysis) showed that systematic hs-cTnT screening would be cost-effective in 100% of cases with a 'willingness to pay' of €780. Our results suggest that systematic peri-operative PMI screening with hs-cTnT may be cost-effective in the short-term in patients undergoing major noncardiac surgery. Economic evaluations, with a long-term horizon, are still needed. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03438448.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 14%
Student > Master 2 14%
Researcher 2 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Lecturer 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 4 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Computer Science 1 7%
Unknown 7 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 June 2023.
All research outputs
#2,636,216
of 24,268,934 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Anaesthesiology
#113
of 1,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,662
of 446,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Anaesthesiology
#3
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,268,934 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,889 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 446,742 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.