药物洗脱支架成本效益分析数据集

数据集获取（Figshare）

• 源站标题：The cost-effectiveness of guideline-driven use of drug-eluting stents: propensity-score matched analysis of a seven-year multicentre experience
• DOI：10.6084/m9.figshare.11447655.v2
• 发布日期：2020-01-20
• 文件数：2 个
• 文件总体积：531.86 KB
• 源站页面：https://tandf.figshare.com/articles/dataset/The_cost-effectiveness_of_guideline-driven_use_of_drug-eluting_stents_propensity-score_matched_analysis_of_a_seven-year_multicentre_experience/11447655

命令行下载

curl -L -o "icmo_a_1708288_sm5187.docx" "https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/20414538"
curl -L -o "icmo_a_1708288_sm5186.docx" "https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/20414541"

文件清单

• icmo_a_1708288_sm5187.docx（456.83 KB）
• icmo_a_1708288_sm5186.docx（75.03 KB）

文件总体积 531.86 KB（源站 API 实测）。

数据加载示例（图像类）

from PIL import Image
import glob, os

files = (glob.glob(os.path.join(path, "**", "*.png"), recursive=True)
       + glob.glob(os.path.join(path, "**", "*.jpg"), recursive=True)
       + glob.glob(os.path.join(path, "**", "*.tif"), recursive=True))
print("图像文件数:", len(files))
img = Image.open(files[0]); print("尺寸/模式:", img.size, img.mode)

# torchvision Dataset 方式:
# from torchvision import datasets
# ds = datasets.ImageFolder(path)  # 要求 子目录=类别

目录组织与标注格式以源站说明和下载后实际文件为准。

数据说明

Background: In routine clinical practice, the implantation of a drug-eluting stent (DES) versus a bare metal stent (BMS) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been guided by criteria for appropriate use. The cost-effectiveness (CE) of adopting these guidelines, however, is not clear, and was investigated from the perspective of the Australian healthcare payer.
Methods and results: Baseline and 12-month follow-up data of 12,710 PCI patients enrolled in the Melbourne Interventional Group (MIG) registry between 2004 and 2011 were analysed. Costs inputs were derived from a clinical costing database and published sources. Propensity-score-matching was performed for DES and BMS groups within sub-groups. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were evaluated for all patients, and sub-groups of patients with ‘0’, 1, 2, or ≥3 indications for a DES. The incremental cost per target vessel revascularization avoided for the overall population was $24,683, and for patients with 0, 1, and 2 indications for a DES was $44,635, $33,335, and $23,788, respectively. However, for those with >3 indications, DES compared with BMS was associated with cost savings. At willingness to pay thresholds of $45,000–$75,000, the probability of cost-effectiveness of DES for the overall cohort was 71–91%, ‘0’ indications, 49–67%, 1 indication, 56–82%, 2 indications, 70–90%, and ≥3 indications, 97–99%.
Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness of DES compared with BMS increased with increasing risk profile of patients from those who had 1, 2, to ≥3 indications for a DES. When compared with BMS, DES was least cost effective among patients with ‘0’ indications for a DES. Based on these results, selective use of DES implantation is supported. These findings may be useful for evidence-based clinical decision-making.

许可

CC BY 4.0

引用

学术使用请引用 DOI 10.6084/m9.figshare.11447655.v2（source: https://tandf.figshare.com/articles/dataset/The_cost-effectiveness_of_guideline-driven_use_of_drug-eluting_stents_propensity-score_matched_analysis_of_a_seven-year_multicentre_experience/11447655）。