• R Grieve, V Porsdal, J Hutton, and C Wolfe.
• Guy's, King's, and St. Thomas' School of Medicine.
• Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000 Jan 1;16(2):684-95.

ObjectivesThis study compared the relative cost-effectiveness of stroke care provided in London and Copenhagen.MethodsHospitalized stroke patients at centers in London (1995-96) and Copenhagen (1994-95) were included. Each patient's use of hospital and community health services was recorded for 1 year after stroke. Center-specific unit costs were collected and converted into dollars using the Purchasing Power Parity Index. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated comparing a Copenhagen model of stroke care to a London model, using regression analysis to adjust for case-mix differences.ResultsA total of 625 patients (297 in Copenhagen, 328 in London) were included in the analysis. Most patients in London (85%) were admitted to general medical wards, with 26% subsequently transferred to a stroke unit. In Copenhagen, 57% of patients were directly admitted to a stroke or neurology unit, with 23% then transferred to a separate rehabilitation hospital. The average length of total hospital stay was 11 days longer in Copenhagen. Patients in Copenhagen were less likely to die than those in London; for patients with cerebral infarction the hazard ratio after case-mix adjustment was 0.53 (95% CI from 0.35 to 0.80). However, a lower proportion of patients with hemorrhagic stroke died in London. The ICER of using the Copenhagen compared with the London model of care ranged from $21,579 to $37,444 per life-year gained for patients with cerebral infarctions.ConclusionsThe ICERs of the Copenhagen compared with the London model of care were within a range generally regarded as cost-effective.

31 keywords...

hide…