While we found relatively good st and ards of reporting the study ’s question , population , interventions , comparators and conclusions , the overall reporting was poor , and evidence of unfamiliarity with international guidelines was evident ( i.e. absence of incremental analysis , of discounting long-term costs and effects ) .
Analysis or description of place-to-place variability was infrequent .
Use and acceptance of health economic evaluations ( HEEs ) has been much greater in developed than in developing nations .
Nevertheless , while developing countries lag behind in the development of HEE methods , they could benefit from the progress made in other countries and concentrate on ways in which existing methods can be used or would need to be modified to fulfill their specific needs .
HEEs , as context -specific tools , are not easily generalizable from setting to setting .
Existing studies regarding generalizability and transferability of HEEs have primarily been conducted in developed countries .
Therefore , a legitimate question for policy makers in Latin America and the Caribbean region ( LAC ) is to what extent HEEs conducted in industrialized economies and in LAC are generalizable to LAC ( trans-regional ) and to other LAC countries ( intra-regional ) , respectively .
Argentine randomized trial of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass surgery in multivessel disease (ERACI): in-hospital results and 1-year follow-up. ERACI Group.
OBJECTIVES This study was design ed to compare freedom from combined cardiac events ( death , angina , myocardial infa rct ion ) at 1- , 3- and 5-year follow-up in patients with multivessel disease r and omized to either percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty or coronary artery bypass graft surgery .  BACKGROUND Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty has been an effective approach in patients with coronary artery disease , but its role in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease is still controversial . METHODS One-hundred twenty-seven patients with multivessel disease and lesions suitable for either form of therapy were r and omized to either coronary artery bypass grafting ( n = 64 ) or coronary angioplasty ( n = 63 ) . In this study we report the immediate results and freedom from combined cardiac events at 1-year follow-up . RESULTS Demographic , clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar in both groups . There were no differences in in-hospital deaths , frequency of periprocedure myocardial infa rct ion or need for emergency revascularization procedures between the two groups . At 1-year follow-up , there were no differences in mortality or in the incidence of myocardial infa rct ion between the groups . However , patients treated with coronary artery bypass grafting were more frequently free of angina , re interventions and combined cardiac events than were patients treated with coronary angioplasty ( 83.5 % vs. 63.7 % , p < 0.005 ) . In-hospital cost and cumulative cost at 1-year follow-up were greater for the coronary artery bypass grafting than for the coronary angioplasty group . CONCLUSIONS No significant differences were found in major in-hospital complications between patients treated with coronary artery bypass grafting or coronary angioplasty . Although at 1-year follow-up there were no differences in survival and freedom from myocardial infa rct ion , patients in the coronary artery bypass grafting group were more frequently free from angina , re interventions and combined events than were patients in the coronary angioplasty group
While we found relatively good st and ards of reporting the study ’s question , population , interventions , comparators and conclusions , the overall reporting was poor , and evidence of unfamiliarity with international guidelines was evident ( i.e. absence of incremental analysis , of discounting long-term costs and effects ) .
Analysis or description of place-to-place variability was infrequent .
Use and acceptance of health economic evaluations ( HEEs ) has been much greater in developed than in developing nations .
Nevertheless , while developing countries lag behind in the development of HEE methods , they could benefit from the progress made in other countries and concentrate on ways in which existing methods can be used or would need to be modified to fulfill their specific needs .
HEEs , as context -specific tools , are not easily generalizable from setting to setting .
Existing studies regarding generalizability and transferability of HEEs have primarily been conducted in developed countries .
Therefore , a legitimate question for policy makers in Latin America and the Caribbean region ( LAC ) is to what extent HEEs conducted in industrialized economies and in LAC are generalizable to LAC ( trans-regional ) and to other LAC countries ( intra-regional ) , respectively .