Cost comparison between two modes of Palmaz Schatz coronary stent implantation: transradial bare stent technique vs. transfemoral sheath-protected stent technique.

Coronary Palmaz Schatz stent implantation is usually performed by using the sheath protected stent delivery system (SDS) via the percutaneous transfemoral route. However, downsizing of PTCA equipment made transradial coronary stenting feasible. Bare stent implantation, 6F technique, increased patient mobility, reduced vascular complications and reduced hospital stay may increase cost effectiveness of this novel technique. Two well-documented patient groups selected for elective single vessel and single lesion Palmaz Schatz stent implantation were retrospectively compared. Group A (transradial stenting; n = 35) was compared to Group B (transfemoral stenting; n = 25) derived from the Benestent population, included in our hospital. A comparison was made for three areas of interest: (1) procedural consumption of material (the number of guiding catheters, guidewires, balloon catheters and stents), (2) postprocedural need for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures for stent-related complications, and (3) duration of hospital stay. Differences between these subjects in Group A and B were translated to hospital costs. Although more guiding catheters were used in group A (1.69 +/- 0.87 vs. 1.08 +/- 0.28; P = 0.001), the use of the SDS contributed importantly to higher material costs in group B (cost reduction in group A; 13%). Less patients in group A required diagnostic (2 vs. 7; P = 0.027) and therapeutic (0 vs. 5; P = 0.01) procedures for bleeding complications (cost reduction; 93%). Hospitalization in Group A was shorter (6.4 +/- 4.7 vs. 11.6 +/- 9.9 days; P = 0.005), caused by early and safe mobilization, less vascular complications, and preprocedural adjustment on coumadin (cost reduction; 45%).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Symptomatic gallbladder stones. Cost-effectiveness of treatment with extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy, conventional and laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

In order to strike the most favorable balance between health benefits and costs, three treatment modalities for symptomatic cholelithiasis were compared in a cost-effectiveness study: extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL), conventional cholecystectomy (CC), and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Data were analyzed from 55 patients who were treated by ESWL, 45 patients who had CC, and 47 patients who had LC. The study was performed by analysis of patients charts and a written questionnaire. After ESWL 35% of the patients were free of stones, 23% had fragments < or = 5 mm, and 42% had fragments > 5 mm at 1-year follow-up. Persistent complaints were reported by 59% after ESWL, 11% after CC, and 14% after LC (P < 0.001). New complaints arose in 12% after ESWL, 11% after CC, and in 5% after LC (P = NS). Patient appreciation score was highest for LC and lowest for ESWL. Mean hospital stay was 2.4 days for ESWL, 10 days for CC, and 3.5 days for LC. Overall costs of treatment were: $5,066 for ESWL; $5,893 for CC; and $3,117 for LC. This study reveals that laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the most effective treatment of the large majority of patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis. ESWL should only be considered in the case of a solitary, relatively small, completely radiolucent stone.