BACKGROUND: Although several randomized trials have demonstrated that coronary stenting improves angiographic and clinical outcomes for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the cost-effectiveness of this practice is unknown. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the long-term costs and cost-effectiveness (C/E) of coronary stenting compared with primary balloon angioplasty as treatment for AMI. Methods and Results- Between December 1996 and November 1997, 900 patients with AMI were randomized to undergo balloon angioplasty (PTCA, n=448) or coronary stenting (n=452). Detailed resource utilization and cost data were collected for each patient's initial hospitalization and for 1 year after randomization. Compared with conventional PTCA, stenting increased procedural costs by approximately $2000 per patient ($6538+/-1778 versus $4561+/-1598, P<0.001). During the 1-year follow-up period, stenting was associated with significant reductions in the need for repeat revascularization and rehospitalization. Although follow-up costs were significantly lower with stenting ($3613+/-7743 versus $4592+/-8198, P=0.03), overall 1-year costs remained approximately $1000/patient higher with stenting than with PTCA ($20 571+/-10 693 versus 19 595+/-10 990, P=0.02). The C/E ratio for stenting compared with PTCA was $10 550 per repeat revascularization avoided. In analyses that incorporated recent changes in stent technology and pricing, the 1-year cost differential fell to <$350/patient, and the C/E ratio improved to $3753 per repeat revascularization avoided. The cost-utility ratio for primary stenting was <$50 000 per quality-adjusted life year gained only if stenting did not increase 1-year mortality by >0.2% compared with PTCA. CONCLUSIONS: As performed in Stent-PAMI, primary stenting for AMI increased 1-year medical care costs compared with primary PTCA. The overall cost-effectiveness of primary stenting depends on the societal value attributed to avoidance of symptomatic restenosis, as well as on the relative mortality rates of primary PTCA and stenting.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Although several randomized trials have demonstrated that coronary stenting improves angiographic and clinical outcomes for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the cost-effectiveness of this practice is unknown. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the long-term costs and cost-effectiveness (C/E) of coronary stenting compared with primary balloon angioplasty as treatment for AMI. Methods and Results- Between December 1996 and November 1997, 900 patients with AMI were randomized to undergo balloon angioplasty (PTCA, n=448) or coronary stenting (n=452). Detailed resource utilization and cost data were collected for each patient's initial hospitalization and for 1 year after randomization. Compared with conventional PTCA, stenting increased procedural costs by approximately $2000 per patient ($6538+/-1778 versus $4561+/-1598, P<0.001). During the 1-year follow-up period, stenting was associated with significant reductions in the need for repeat revascularization and rehospitalization. Although follow-up costs were significantly lower with stenting ($3613+/-7743 versus $4592+/-8198, P=0.03), overall 1-year costs remained approximately $1000/patient higher with stenting than with PTCA ($20 571+/-10 693 versus 19 595+/-10 990, P=0.02). The C/E ratio for stenting compared with PTCA was $10 550 per repeat revascularization avoided. In analyses that incorporated recent changes in stent technology and pricing, the 1-year cost differential fell to <$350/patient, and the C/E ratio improved to $3753 per repeat revascularization avoided. The cost-utility ratio for primary stenting was <$50 000 per quality-adjusted life year gained only if stenting did not increase 1-year mortality by >0.2% compared with PTCA. CONCLUSIONS: As performed in Stent-PAMI, primary stenting for AMI increased 1-year medical care costs compared with primary PTCA. The overall cost-effectiveness of primary stenting depends on the societal value attributed to avoidance of symptomatic restenosis, as well as on the relative mortality rates of primary PTCA and stenting.
Authors: Marleen M J Ploegmakers; Anneke M Viscaal; Lois Finch; Nancy E Mayo; James M Brophy Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2010 Jun-Jul Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: David Gregory; Dennis J Scotti; Gregory de Lissovoy; Igor Palacios; Simon Dixon; Brijeshwar Maini; William O'Neill Journal: Am Health Drug Benefits Date: 2013-03
Authors: Matthew R Reynolds; Duane S Pinto; Chunxue Shi; Joshua Walczak; Ronna Berezin; David R Holmes; David J Cohen Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2007-09-06 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Donald S Likosky; Jessica Van Parys; Weiping Zhou; William B Borden; Milton C Weinstein; Jonathan S Skinner Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Vivek Y Reddy; Ronald L Akehurst; Stacey L Amorosi; Meghan B Gavaghan; Deanna S Hertz; David R Holmes Journal: Stroke Date: 2018-05-08 Impact factor: 7.914