Skip to content

Cost-effectiveness of Remote Ischemic Conditioning as an Adjunct to Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Cost-effectiveness of Remote Ischemic Conditioning as an Adjunct to Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction

Status
UNKNOWN
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02431338
Enrollment
333
Registered
2015-05-01
Start date
2007-02-28
Completion date
2015-09-30
Last updated
2015-05-01

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction

Keywords

Remote ischemic conditioning, Cost-effectiveness analysis

Brief summary

The aim of this study is to investigate the cost-effectiveness of remote ischemic conditioning as an adjunct to primary percutaneous coronary intervention from the perspective of a Danish healthcare system.

Interventions

PROCEDURERemote ischemic conditioning

Intermittent arm ischemia through four cycles of alternating 5-minute inflation followed by 5-minute deflation of a blood pressure cuff placed around the upper arm.

Sponsors

Aarhus University Hospital
CollaboratorOTHER
University of Aarhus
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

(1) age ≥ 18 years, (2) symptom duration of ≤ 12 hours prior to admission, and (3) ST-segment elevation ≥ 0.1 mV in two or more contiguous electrocardiogram (ECG) leads

Exclusion criteria

(1) diagnosis not confirmed during hospital admission, (2) history of previous myocardial infarction, (3) previous CABG, and (4) chest pain \> 12 hours prior to admission

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) = [difference in total cardiovascular medical care costs between treatment groups] / [difference in major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE)-free survival between treatment groups]4-years of follow-upData for the economic evaluation are collected from Danish nationwide registries and validated with medical record review. Charges from the Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) and the Danish Ambulatory Grouping System /DAGS) are used to calculate total cardiovascular medical care costs in the two treatment groups.

Countries

Denmark

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026