Skip Navigation

European Heart Journal 2002 23(11):858-868; doi:10.1053/euhj.2001.3080
Copyright © 2002 by the European Society of Cardiology.
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow References
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (9)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gandjour, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gandjour, A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

European comparison of costs and quality in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (2000–2001)

A. Gandjoura,f1, F. Kleinschmitb and K.W. Lauterbacha INTERCARE Iternational Investigators

a Institute of Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
b Johanniter Hospital, Department of Medicine I, Duisburg, Germany
Michael Drummond, Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, U.K.

revised November 2, 2001; accepted November 7, 2001

Abstract

Aims To compare the inpatient costs and process quality in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction in France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and the U.K.

Methods A total of 208 European hospitals assessed services for one hypothetical average patient with acute myocardial infarction (cost evaluation) and prospectively followed up one or two real acute myocardial infarction patients (quality evaluation) in 2000/2001. The following cost modules were evaluated: general medicine ward, critical care unit (both personnel costs only), and reperfusion therapy. The following process quality indicators were evaluated: reperfusion therapy; and prescription of aspirin, lidocaine, beta-blockers, and ACE inhibitors.

Results Switzerland, Germany, and France had the highest reperfusion costs due to a relatively high percentage of patients receiving percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasties, stents, and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockers. Personnel costs for general medicine wards and critical care units were highest in Italy and Germany due to relatively long hospital stays. Average quality ratings ranged from 89% in the U.K. and France to 96% in Germany.

Conclusion There was little variation in the process quality of care for treating acute myocardial infarction. Differences in resource use may result from differences in the types of reimbursement and in the rates of diffusion of new technology. Copyright 2002 The European Society of Cardiology. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Key Words: Myocardial infarction, quality, costs, Europe

f1 Correspondence: Dr Gandjour, Institut für Gesundheitsökonomie und Klinische Epidemiologie, Universität zu Köln, Gleueler Straße 176-178, 50935 Köln, Germany.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Eur Heart JHome page
F. Schiele, N. Meneveau, M. F. Seronde, F. Caulfield, R. Fouche, G. Lassabe, D. Baborier, P. Legalery, J.-P. Bassand, and on behalf of the Reseau de Cardiologie de Franche
Compliance with guidelines and 1-year mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a prospective study
Eur. Heart J., May 1, 2005; 26(9): 873 - 880.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Am Coll CardiolHome page
J. Machecourt, E. Bonnefoy, G. Vanzetto, P. Motreff, S. Marliere, A. Leizorovicz, B. Allenet, J. M. Lacroute, J. Cassagnes, and P. Touboul
Primary angioplasty is cost-minimizing compared with pre-hospital thrombolysis for patients within 60 min of a percutaneous coronary intervention center: The Comparison of Angioplasty and Pre-hospital Thrombolysis in Acute Myocardial Infarction (CAPTIM) cost-efficacy sub-study
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., February 15, 2005; 45(4): 515 - 524.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.