Abstract
Study Objective: This study reports a comparison of the time to treatment and cost of administration of alteplase (tPA) and reteplase (rPA) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI). Design: Retrospective chart review. Setting: Hospital emergency department. Interventions: A retrospective chart review of 500 MI patients who received alteplase or reteplase was performed. A comparison of time from presentation in the emergency department to start of treatment was performed, and the cost of administration of drugs, including cost of supplies, monitoring time, and IV line complications, was calculated for each drug. Results: The time from presentation to start of treatment was significantly shorter for reteplase than alteplase (51 vs 34 min). This difference resulted from a shorter decision to treat to start of treatment time for reteplase (11 min) compared to alteplase (31 min). The cost of administration of alteplase ranged from $136 to $184 per patient, while the cost of administration of reteplase ranged from $87 to $120 per patient. Discussion: Given the similar safety and efficacy profiles of these thrombolytic agents, the advantages of reteplase in speed of administration and the reduction in cost should be considered when making formulary and drug product selection decisions.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 303-308 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Journal | Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis |
| Volume | 9 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| State | Published - 2000 |
Fingerprint
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Hematology
- Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
Cite this
Time to treatment and cost of thrombolysis : A multicenter comparison of tPA and rPA. / Seyedroudbari, Ali; Kessler, E. Richard; Mooss, Aryan N.; Wurdeman, Richard L.; Bala, Mohan; Hilleman, Daniel E.
In: Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2000, p. 303-308.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Time to treatment and cost of thrombolysis
T2 - A multicenter comparison of tPA and rPA
AU - Seyedroudbari, Ali
AU - Kessler, E. Richard
AU - Mooss, Aryan N.
AU - Wurdeman, Richard L.
AU - Bala, Mohan
AU - Hilleman, Daniel E.
PY - 2000
Y1 - 2000
N2 - Study Objective: This study reports a comparison of the time to treatment and cost of administration of alteplase (tPA) and reteplase (rPA) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI). Design: Retrospective chart review. Setting: Hospital emergency department. Interventions: A retrospective chart review of 500 MI patients who received alteplase or reteplase was performed. A comparison of time from presentation in the emergency department to start of treatment was performed, and the cost of administration of drugs, including cost of supplies, monitoring time, and IV line complications, was calculated for each drug. Results: The time from presentation to start of treatment was significantly shorter for reteplase than alteplase (51 vs 34 min). This difference resulted from a shorter decision to treat to start of treatment time for reteplase (11 min) compared to alteplase (31 min). The cost of administration of alteplase ranged from $136 to $184 per patient, while the cost of administration of reteplase ranged from $87 to $120 per patient. Discussion: Given the similar safety and efficacy profiles of these thrombolytic agents, the advantages of reteplase in speed of administration and the reduction in cost should be considered when making formulary and drug product selection decisions.
AB - Study Objective: This study reports a comparison of the time to treatment and cost of administration of alteplase (tPA) and reteplase (rPA) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI). Design: Retrospective chart review. Setting: Hospital emergency department. Interventions: A retrospective chart review of 500 MI patients who received alteplase or reteplase was performed. A comparison of time from presentation in the emergency department to start of treatment was performed, and the cost of administration of drugs, including cost of supplies, monitoring time, and IV line complications, was calculated for each drug. Results: The time from presentation to start of treatment was significantly shorter for reteplase than alteplase (51 vs 34 min). This difference resulted from a shorter decision to treat to start of treatment time for reteplase (11 min) compared to alteplase (31 min). The cost of administration of alteplase ranged from $136 to $184 per patient, while the cost of administration of reteplase ranged from $87 to $120 per patient. Discussion: Given the similar safety and efficacy profiles of these thrombolytic agents, the advantages of reteplase in speed of administration and the reduction in cost should be considered when making formulary and drug product selection decisions.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034072763&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034072763&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article
VL - 9
SP - 303
EP - 308
JO - Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis
JF - Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis
SN - 0929-5305
IS - 3
ER -