Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of FFR Compared with Angiography in Multivessel Disease Patient / Impacto Clínico e Custo-Efetividade da FFR em Comparação à Angiografia em Pacientes com Doenças Multiarteriais Submetidos à ICP

Abstract Background: In multivessel disease patients with moderate stenosis, fractional flow reserve (FFR) allows the analysis of the lesions and guides treatment, and could contribute to the cost-effectiveness (CE) of non-pharmacological stents (NPS). Objectives: To evaluate CE and clinical impact of FFR-guided versus angiography-guided angioplasty (ANGIO) in multivessel patients using NPS. Methods: Multivessel disease patients were prospectively randomized to FFR or ANGIO groups during a 5 year-period and followed for < 12 months. Outcomes measures were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), restenosis and CE. Results: We studied 69 patients, 47 (68.1%) men, aged 62.0 ± 9.0 years, 34 (49.2%) in FFR group and 53 (50.7%) in ANGIO group, with stable angina or acute coronary syndrome. In FFR, there were 26 patients with biarterial disease (76.5%) and 8 (23.5%) with triarterial disease, and in ANGIO, 24 (68.6%) with biarterial and 11 (31.4%) with triarterial disease. Twelve MACEs were observed - 3 deaths: 2 (5.8%) in FFR and 1 (2.8%) in ANGIO, 9 (13.0%) angina: 4(11.7%) in FFR and 5(14.2%) in ANGIO, 6 restenosis: 2(5.8%) in FFR and 4 (11.4%) in ANGIO. Angiography detected 87(53.0%) lesions in FFR, 39(23.7%) with PCI and 48(29.3%) with medical treatment; and 77 (47.0%) lesions in ANGIO, all treated with angioplasty. Thirty-nine (33.3%) stents were registered in FFR (0.45 ± 0.50 stents/lesion) and 78 (1.05 ± 0.22 stents/lesion) in ANGIO (p = 0.0001), 51.4% greater in ANGIO than FFR. CE analysis revealed a cost of BRL 5,045.97 BRL 5,430.60 in ANGIO and FFR, respectively. The difference of effectiveness was of 1.82%. Conclusion: FFR reduced the number of lesions treated and stents, and the need for target-lesion revascularization, with a CE comparable with that of angiography.

Resumo Fundamentos: Em pacientes multiarteriais e lesões moderadas, a reserva de fluxo fracionada (FFR) avalia cada lesão e direciona o tratamento, podendo ser útil no custo-efetividade (CE) de implante de stents não farmacológicos (SNF). Objetivos: Avaliar CE e impacto clínico da angioplastia + FFR versus angioplastia + angiografia (ANGIO), em multiarteriais, utilizando SNF. Métodos: pacientes com doença multiarteriais foram randomizados prospectivamente durante ±5 anos para FFR ou ANGIO, e acompanhados por até 12 meses. Foram avaliados eventos cardíacos maiores (ECAM), reestenose e CE. Resultados: foram incluídos 69 pacientes, 47(68,1%) homens, 34(49,2%) no FFR e 35(50,7%) no ANGIO, idade 62,0 ± 9,0 anos, com angina estável e Síndrome Coronariana Aguda estabilizada. No FFR, havia 26 com doença (76,5%) biarterial e 8 (23,5%) triarterial, e no grupo ANGIO, 24(68,6%) biarteriais e 11(31,4%) triarteriais. Ocorreram 12(17,3%) ECAM - 3(4,3%) óbitos: 2(5,8%) no FFR e 1(2,8%) no ANGIO, 9(13,0%) anginas, 4(11,7%) no FFR e 5(14,2%) no ANGIO, 6 reestenoses: 2(5,8%) no FFR e 4 (11,4%) no ANGIO. Angiografia detectou 87(53,0%) lesões no FFR, 39(23,7%) com ICP e 48(29,3%) com tratamento clínico; e 77(47,0%) lesões no ANGIO, todas submetidas à angioplastia. Quanto aos stents, registrou-se 39(33,3%) (0,45 ± 0,50 stents/lesão) no FFR e 78(66,6%) (1,05 ± 0,22 stents/lesão) no ANGIO (p = 0,0001); ANGIO utilizou 51,4% a mais que o FFR. Análise de CE revelou um custo de R$5045,97 e R$5.430,60 nos grupos ANGIO e FFR, respectivamente. A diferença de efetividade foi 1,82%. Conclusões: FFR diminuiu o número de lesões tratadas e de stents e necessidade de revascularização do vaso-alvo, com CE comparável ao da angiografia.

[Angioplasty, coronarography and coronary artery bypass in France: a geographical approach]. / Angioplastie coronaire, coronarographie et pontage aorto-coronarien en France: une approche géographique.

There are major geographic disparities in the practice of coronary angioplasty and coronarography in France. Their study shows that the frequency of these procedures is linked to the density of private medical practice (cardiologist's offices or clinics). This is not observed as far as coronary artery bypass surgery is concerned. This indicates an induction effect from simply on demand. However, this cannot give indication on the pertinence of those acts since this induction effect may as well be beneficial to patients. Nevertheless, this study gives an insight to the regulatory authorities (Regional Health Agencies and the National "Direction Générale de l'Offre de Soins") which have to manage health care system performance on the basis of the principles set out and international guidelines so as to provide equal access for all to a quality healthcare system.

Acute Coronary Syndrome Treatment Costs from the Perspective of the Supplementary Health System.

BACKGROUND: Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is defined as a "group of clinical symptoms compatible with acute myocardial ischemia", representing the leading cause of death worldwide, with a high clinical and financial impact. In this sense, the development of economic studies assessing the costs related to the treatment of ACS should be considered. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate costs and length of hospital stay between groups of patients treated for ACS undergoing angioplasty with or without stent implantation (stent+ / stent-), coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) and treated only clinically (Clinical) from the perspective of the Brazilian Supplementary Health System (SHS). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of medical claims of beneficiaries of health plans was performed considering hospitalization costs and length of hospital stay for management of patients undergoing different types of treatment for ACS, between Jan/2010 and Jun/2012. RESULTS: The average costs per patient were R$ 18,261.77, R$ 30,611.07, R$ 37,454.94 and R$ 40,883.37 in the following groups: Clinical, stent-, stent+ and CABG, respectively. The average costs per day of hospitalization were R$ 1,987.03, R$ 4,024.72, R$ 6,033.40 and R$ 2,663.82, respectively. The average results for length of stay were 9.19 days, 7.61 days, 6.19 days and 15.20 days in these same groups. The differences were significant between all groups except Clinical and stent- and between stent + and CABG groups for cost analysis. CONCLUSION: Hospitalization costs of SCA are high in the Brazilian SHS, being significantly higher when interventional procedures are required.

Acute Coronary Syndrome Treatment Costs from the Perspective of the Supplementary Health System / Custos de Tratamento da Síndrome Coronariana Aguda sob a Perspectiva do Sistema de Saúde Suplementar

AbstractBackground:Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is defined as a “group of clinical symptoms compatible with acute myocardial ischemia”, representing the leading cause of death worldwide, with a high clinical and financial impact. In this sense, the development of economic studies assessing the costs related to the treatment of ACS should be considered.Objective:To evaluate costs and length of hospital stay between groups of patients treated for ACS undergoing angioplasty with or without stent implantation (stent+ / stent-), coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) and treated only clinically (Clinical) from the perspective of the Brazilian Supplementary Health System (SHS).Methods:A retrospective analysis of medical claims of beneficiaries of health plans was performed considering hospitalization costs and length of hospital stay for management of patients undergoing different types of treatment for ACS, between Jan/2010 and Jun/2012.Results:The average costs per patient were R$ 18,261.77, R$ 30,611.07, R$ 37,454.94 and R$ 40,883.37 in the following groups: Clinical, stent-, stent+ and CABG, respectively. The average costs per day of hospitalization were R$ 1,987.03, R$ 4,024.72, R$ 6,033.40 and R$ 2,663.82, respectively. The average results for length of stay were 9.19 days, 7.61 days, 6.19 days and 15.20 days in these same groups. The differences were significant between all groups except Clinical and stent- and between stent + and CABG groups for cost analysis.Conclusion:Hospitalization costs of SCA are high in the Brazilian SHS, being significantly higher when interventional procedures are required.

Fundamento:Síndrome coronariana aguda (SCA) é definida como um “grupo de sintomas clínicos compatíveis com isquemia miocárdica aguda”, representando a principal causa de óbito no mundo, com elevado impacto clínico e financeiro. Nesse sentido, o desenvolvimento de estudos econômicos que avaliem os custos despendidos no tratamento da SCA deve ser considerado.Objetivo:Avaliar custos e tempo de internação hospitalar entre grupos de pacientes que trataram SCA, submetidos a procedimentos de angioplastia com ou sem implante de stent (stent+ / stent-), revascularização (Revasc) e tratados apenas clinicamente (Clínico), sob a perspectiva do sistema de saúde suplementar (SSS) brasileiro.Métodos:Realizou-se uma análise retrospectiva de contas médicas de beneficiários de planos de saúde considerando dados de custos de internação e tempo de permanência hospitalar para o manejo de pacientes submetidos a diferentes tipos de tratamento para SCA, no período entre 1/2010 e 6/2012.Resultados:Os custos médios por paciente foram de R$ 18.261,77, R$ 30.611,07, R$ 37.454,94 e R$ 40.883,37 nos grupos Clínico, stent-, stent+ e Revasc, respectivamente. Os custos médios por dia de internação foram de R$ 1.987,03, R$ 4.024,72, R$ 6.033,40 e R$ 2.663,82, respectivamente. Os tempos médios de internação foram de 9,19 dias, 7,61 dias, 6,19 dias e 15,20 dias nesses mesmos grupos. As diferenças foram estatisticamente significativas entre todos os grupos, exceto Clínico e stent- e entre os grupos stent + e Revasc, para a análise de custos.Conclusão:O custo hospitalar da SCA é elevado no SSS brasileiro e significativamente mais alto quando há a necessidade da realização de procedimentos intervencionistas.

Medicare's Hospital Compare quality reports appear to have slowed price increases for two major procedures.

Previous research has found that Hospital Compare, Medicare's public reporting initiative, has had little impact on patient outcomes. However, little is known about the initiative's impact on hospital prices, which may be significant because private insurers are generally well positioned to respond to quality information when negotiating prices with hospitals. We estimated difference-in-differences models of the effects of Hospital Compare quality reporting on transaction prices for two major cardiac procedures, coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). States that had mandated their own public reporting systems before the implementation of Hospital Compare formed the control group. We found that prices for these procedures continued to increase overall after the initiation of Hospital Compare quality scores, but the rate of increase was significantly lower in states with no quality reporting metrics of their own before Hospital Compare, when compared to the control states (annual rates of increase of 4.4 percent versus 8.7 percent for PCI, and 3.9 percent versus 10.6 percent for CABG, adjusted for overall inflation). This finding implies that Hospital Compare provided leverage to purchasers in moderating price increases, while adding competitive pressures on hospitals. Providing accurate quality information on both hospitals and health plans could benefit consumers.

Same day discharge after elective percutaneous coronary intervention.

Same-day percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a reality with modern interventional equipment and pharmaceutical agents. Elective PCI is rarely an inpatient procedure and is now predominantly considered an outpatient procedure. Approaches to safely manage elective patients through same-day PCI have been well described in the literature and demonstrate no safety signal compared with overnight monitoring in the elective patient. With the costs of elective PCI being time dependent in comparison to fixed reimbursement of outpatient care, the efficiencies to bed utilization offered by same-day PCI make this attractive from an efficiency view point. Patient satisfaction improves with same-day discharge. The potential for cost-efficient care can only be maximized if health care providers view this shift to outpatient PCI care as an impetus to improve the whole care process rather than an administrative change with no effect on actual patient care. Same-day PCI is effective and can be integrated into modern health care.

The impact of hybrid coronary revascularization on hospital costs and reimbursements.

BACKGROUND: Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines a minimally invasive, left internal mammary artery-left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) bypass with percutaneous intervention of non-LAD vessels for patients with multivessel coronary disease. The financial implications of HCR have not been compared with off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) through sternotomy. METHODS: The contribution margin is a fiduciary calculation (best hospital payment estimate--total variable costs) used by hospitals to determine fiscal viability of services. From 2010 to 2011, 26 Medicare patients underwent HCR at a single United States institution and were compared with 28 randomly selected, contemporaneous Medicare patients undergoing multivessel OPCAB. All HCR patients underwent a robotic-assisted, sternal-sparing, off-pump, left internal mammary artery-LAD anastomosis plus percutaneous intervention to non-LAD vessels. A linear regression model was used to compare fiscal and utilization outcomes of HCR to OPCAB adjusted for hospital length of stay and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score. RESULTS: On regression analysis controlling for overall length of stay and Predicted Risk of Mortality score, the contribution margin (+$8,771, p<0.0001) was greater for HCR than for OPCAB. Despite higher total cost for HCR compared with OPCAB (+$7,026, p=0.001), the total variable cost (+$2,281, p=0.07) was not significantly different. Best payment estimates (+11,031, p<0.0001) and Medicare reimbursements (+$8,992, p=0.002) were higher for HCR than for OPCAB, and there was a reduction in blood transfusion (-1.5 units, p<0.0001), ventilator time (-10 hours, p=0.001), and postoperative length of stay (-1.2 days, p=0.002) for the HCR group. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with OPCAB, HCR results in a greater contribution margin for hospitals. This may result from higher reimbursement as well as improved resource utilization postoperatively, which may offset more expensive procedural costs associated with HCR.

Fractional flow reserve versus angiography in guiding management to optimize outcomes in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (FAMOUS-NSTEMI): rationale and design of a randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with acute non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), coronary arteriography is usually recommended; but visual interpretation of the angiogram is subjective. We hypothesized that functional assessment of coronary stenosis severity with a pressure-sensitive guide wire (fractional flow reserve [FFR]) would have additive diagnostic, clinical, and health economic utility as compared with angiography-guided standard care. METHODS AND DESIGN: A prospective multicenter parallel-group 1:1 randomized controlled superiority trial in 350 NSTEMI patients with ≥1 coronary stenosis ≥30% severity (threshold for FFR measurement) will be conducted. Patients will be randomized immediately after coronary angiography to the FFR-guided group or angiography-guided group. All patients will then undergo FFR measurement in all vessels with a coronary stenosis ≥30% severity including culprit and nonculprit lesions. Fractional flow reserve will be disclosed to guide treatment in the FFR-guided group but not disclosed in the "angiography-guided" group. In the FFR-guided group, an FFR ≤0.80 will be an indication for revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass surgery, as appropriate. The primary outcome is the between-group difference in the proportion of patients allocated to medical management only compared with revascularization. Secondary outcomes include the occurrence of cardiac death or hospitalization for myocardial infarction or heart failure, quality of life, and health care costs. The minimum and average follow-up periods for the primary analysis are 6 and 18 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our developmental clinical trial will address the feasibility of FFR measurement in NSTEMI and the influence of FFR disclosure on treatment decisions and health and economic outcomes.

Impact of minimally invasive surgery on medical spending and employee absenteeism.

IMPORTANCE: As many surgical procedures have undergone a transition from a standard, open surgical approach to a minimally invasive one in the past 2 decades, the diffusion of minimally invasive surgery may have had sizeable but overlooked effects on medical expenditures and worker productivity. OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of standard vs minimally invasive surgery on health plan spending and workplace absenteeism for 6 types of surgery. DESIGN: Cross-sectional regression analysis. SETTING: National health insurance claims data and matched workplace absenteeism data from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2009. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of adults with employer-sponsored health insurance who underwent either standard or minimally invasive surgery for coronary revascularization, uterine fibroid resection, prostatectomy, peripheral revascularization, carotid revascularization, or aortic aneurysm repair. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURE: Health plan spending and workplace absenteeism from 14 days before through 352 days after the index surgery. RESULTS: There were 321,956 patients who underwent surgery; 23,814 were employees with workplace absenteeism data. After multivariable adjustment, mean health plan spending was lower for minimally invasive surgery for coronary revascularization (-$30,850; 95% CI, -$31,629 to -$30,091), uterine fibroid resection (-$1509; 95% CI, -$1754 to -$1280), and peripheral revascularization (-$12,031; 95% CI, -$15,552 to -$8717) and higher for prostatectomy ($1350; 95% CI, $611 to $2212) and carotid revascularization ($4900; 95% CI, $1772 to $8370). Undergoing minimally invasive surgery was associated with missing significantly fewer days of work for coronary revascularization (mean difference, -37.7 days; 95% CI, -41.1 to -34.3), uterine fibroid resection (mean difference, -11.7 days; 95% CI, -14.0 to -9.4), prostatectomy (mean difference, -9.0 days; 95% CI, -14.2 to -3.7), and peripheral revascularization (mean difference, -16.6 days; 95% CI, -28.0 to -5.2). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: For 3 of 6 types of surgery studied, minimally invasive procedures were associated with significantly lower health plan spending than standard surgery. For 4 types of surgery, minimally invasive procedures were consistently associated with significantly fewer days of absence from work.

Resource use trajectories for aged medicare beneficiaries with complex coronary conditions.

OBJECTIVE: To use coronary revascularization choice to illustrate the application of a method simulating a treatment's effect on subsequent resource use. DATA SOURCES: Medicare inpatient and outpatient claims from 2002 to 2008 for patients receiving multivessel revascularization for symptomatic coronary disease in 2003-2004. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study of 102,877 beneficiaries assessed survival, days in institutional settings, and Medicare payments for up to 6 years following receipt of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODS: A three-part estimator designed to provide robust estimates of a treatment's effect in the setting of mortality and censored follow-up was used. The estimator decomposes the treatment effect into effects attributable to survival differences versus treatment-related intensity of resource use. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: After adjustment, on average CABG recipients survived 23 days longer, spent an 11 additional days in institutional settings, and had cumulative Medicare payments that were $12,834 higher than PCI recipients. The majority of the differences in institutional days and payments were due to intensity rather than survival effects. CONCLUSIONS: In this example, the survival benefit from CABG was modest and the resource implications were substantial, although further adjustments for treatment selection are needed.

Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug eluting stents versus bypass surgery for patients with diabetes mellitus and multivessel coronary artery disease: results from the FREEDOM trial.

BACKGROUND: Studies from the balloon angioplasty and bare metal stent eras have demonstrated that coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is cost-effective compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients undergoing multivessel coronary revascularization-particularly among patients with complex coronary artery disease or diabetes mellitus. Whether these results apply in the drug-eluting stent (DES) era is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 2005 and 2010, 1900 patients with diabetes mellitus and multivessel coronary artery disease were randomized to PCI with DES (DES-PCI; n=953) or CABG (n=947). Costs were assessed from the perspective of the U.S. health care system. Health state utilities were assessed using the EuroQOL 5 dimension 3 level questionnaire. A patient-level microsimulation model based on U.S. life-tables and in-trial results was used to estimate lifetime cost-effectiveness. Although initial procedural costs were lower for CABG, total costs for the index hospitalization were $8622 higher per patient. Over the next 5 years, follow-up costs were higher with PCI, owing to more frequent repeat revascularization and higher outpatient medication costs. Nonetheless, cumulative 5-year costs remained $3641 higher per patient with CABG. Although there were only modest gains in survival with CABG during the trial period, when the in-trial results were extended to a lifetime horizon, CABG was projected to be economically attractive relative to DES-PCI, with substantial gains in both life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios <$10 000 per life-year or quality-adjusted life-year gained across a broad range of assumptions regarding the effect of CABG on post-trial survival and costs. CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher initial costs, CABG is a highly cost-effective revascularization strategy compared with DES-PCI for patients with diabetes mellitus and multivessel coronary artery disease. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinical-trials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00086450.

Percutaneous versus surgical interventions for coronary artery disease in those with diabetes mellitus.

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a metabolic disorder of multiple etiologies that causes long-term damage of various organs including the cardiovascular system. A consistent observation shows that DM amplifies the risk of cardiovascular events by 4- to 6-fold. Since coronary artery disease (CAD) in diabetic patients exhibits diffuse and accelerated lesions, invasive revascularization continues to be a challenge and has worse outcomes than patients without DM. Owing to the pathogenesis of DM and the presence of severe endothelial dysfunction, investigators have been trying to find new treatment modalities that could target the treatment of the disease rather than the treatment of the lesion. Until new treatment modalities are proven and gain acceptance, invasive revascularization remains to be the choice of treatment in such patients. The focus of this review is to compare the results of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the treatment of stable CAD in patients with DM.

Cost-effectiveness analysis for surgical, angioplasty, or medical therapeutics for coronary artery disease: 5-year follow-up of medicine, angioplasty, or surgery study (MASS) II trial.

BACKGROUND: The Second Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS II) included patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and normal systolic ventricular function. Patients underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG, n=203), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI, n=205), or medical treatment alone (MT, n=203). This investigation compares the economic outcome at 5-year follow-up of the 3 therapeutic strategies. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed cumulative costs during a 5-year follow-up period. To analyze the cost-effectiveness, adjustment was made on the cumulative costs for average event-free time and angina-free proportion. Respectively, for event-free survival and event plus angina-free survival, MT presented 3.79 quality-adjusted life-years and 2.07 quality-adjusted life-years; PCI presented 3.59 and 2.77 quality-adjusted life-years; and CABG demonstrated 4.4 and 2.81 quality-adjusted life-years. The event-free costs were $9071.00 for MT; $19,967.00 for PCI; and $18,263.00 for CABG. The paired comparison of the event-free costs showed that there was a significant difference favoring MT versus PCI (P<0.01) and versus CABG (P<0.01) and CABG versus PCI (P=0.01). The event-free plus angina-free costs were $16,553.00, $25,831.00, and $24,614.00, respectively. The paired comparison of the event-free plus angina-free costs showed that there was a significant difference favoring MT versus PCI (P=0.04), and versus CABG (P<0.001); there was no difference between CABG and PCI (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In the long-term economic analysis, for the prevention of a composite primary end point, MT was more cost effective than CABG, and CABG was more cost-effective than PCI. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: www.controlled-trials.com. REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN66068876.

Comparing cost aspects of coronary artery bypass graft surgery with coronary artery stenting.

Randomized trials have compared revascularization of coronary artery disease by coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). CABG is an expensive treatment. However, it manages to improve quality of life, restore general well being, and alleviate symptoms of patients. Coronary stents have improved the safety and durability of PCI. Nonetheless, stenting remains limited by a relatively high in-stent restenosis and thrombosis rate. The costs and cost-effectiveness for these different treatment modalities are relevant issues because cardiovascular disease and its management are prime targets for cost reduction initiatives. There is a debate as to which is the optimal treatment strategy as well as to the cost-effectiveness comparing CABG and PCI. This review provides an overview of cost-effectiveness of CABG compared with PCI. PCI has high costs due to the need for subsequent revascularization procedures, with absence of mortality and survival benefit compared with CABG. Despite the relative lower initial costs of PCI in the first year, PCI is not a cost-effective intervention in comparison with CABG. However, the studies undertaken to date have predominantly been short term and provide a very limited evidence base by which to assess the cost-effectiveness of modern clinical practice. It seems that in longer term, the benefits of CABG may exceed those of stenting and the difference in net cost may be in favour of CABG as the risk of repeat revascularization still increases with PCI regardless of the use of DES. However, to date no long-term data are available in cost-effectiveness between CABG and PCI. The 5-year outcome of the ongoing SYNTAX trial is essential and might therefore provide new insights into the comparison of cost-effectiveness between CABG and DES PCI.

Economic outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents versus bypass surgery for patients with left main or three-vessel coronary artery disease: one-year results from the SYNTAX trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alternative approaches to revascularization for patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease (CAD). BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated that, despite higher initial costs, long-term costs with bypass surgery (CABG) in multivessel CAD are similar to those for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The impact of drug-eluting stents (DES) on these results is unknown. METHODS: The SYNTAX trial randomized 1,800 patients with left main or three-vessel CAD to either CABG (n = 897) or PCI using paclitaxel-eluting stents (n = 903). Resource utilization data were collected prospectively for all patients, and cumulative 1-year costs were assessed from the perspective of the U.S. healthcare system. RESULTS: Total costs for the initial hospitalization were $5,693/patient higher with CABG, whereas follow-up costs were $2,282/patient higher with PCI due mainly to more frequent revascularization procedures and higher outpatient medication costs. Total 1-year costs were thus $3,590/patient higher with CABG, while quality-adjusted life expectancy was slightly higher with PCI. Although PCI was an economically dominant strategy for the overall population, cost-effectiveness varied considerably according to angiographic complexity. For patients with high angiographic complexity (SYNTAX score > 32), total 1-year costs were similar for CABG and PCI, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for CABG was $43,486 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with three-vessel or left main CAD, PCI is an economically attractive strategy over the first year for patients with low and moderate angiographic complexity, while CABG is favored among patients with high angiographic complexity.