BACKGROUND: Randomized trials comparing multivessel stenting with coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) have demonstrated similar rates of death and myocardial infarction but higher rates of repeat revascularization after stenting. The impact of these alternative strategies on overall medical care costs is uncertain, particularly within the US health care system. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, matched cohort study to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of multivessel stenting and bypass surgery. The stent group consisted of 100 consecutive patients who underwent stenting of >or=2 major native coronary arteries at our institution. The CABG group consisted of 200 patients who underwent nonemergent isolated bypass surgery during the same time frame, matched (2:1) for age, sex, ejection fraction, diabetes mellitus, and extent of coronary disease. Detailed clinical follow-up and resource utilization data were collected for a minimum of 2 years. Total costs were calculated by use of year 2000 unit prices. RESULTS: Over a median follow up period of 2.8 years, there were no significant differences in all-cause mortality rates (3.0% vs 3.0%), Q-wave myocardial infarction (5.1% vs 4.0%), or the composite of death or myocardial infarction (7.1% vs 7.0%) between the stent and CABG groups (P = not significant for all comparisons). However, at 2-year follow up, patients with stents were more likely to require >or=1 repeat revascularization procedure (32.0% vs 4.5%, P <.001). The initial cost of multivessel stenting was 43% less than the cost of CABG (11,810 dollars vs 20,574 dollars, P <.001) and remained 27% less (17,634 dollars vs 24,288 dollars, P =.005) at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Multivessel stenting and CABG result in comparable risks of death and myocardial infarction. Despite a higher rate of repeat revascularization, multivessel stenting was significantly less costly than CABG through the first 2 years of follow-up.
BACKGROUND: Randomized trials comparing multivessel stenting with coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) have demonstrated similar rates of death and myocardial infarction but higher rates of repeat revascularization after stenting. The impact of these alternative strategies on overall medical care costs is uncertain, particularly within the US health care system. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, matched cohort study to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of multivessel stenting and bypass surgery. The stent group consisted of 100 consecutive patients who underwent stenting of >or=2 major native coronary arteries at our institution. The CABG group consisted of 200 patients who underwent nonemergent isolated bypass surgery during the same time frame, matched (2:1) for age, sex, ejection fraction, diabetes mellitus, and extent of coronary disease. Detailed clinical follow-up and resource utilization data were collected for a minimum of 2 years. Total costs were calculated by use of year 2000 unit prices. RESULTS: Over a median follow up period of 2.8 years, there were no significant differences in all-cause mortality rates (3.0% vs 3.0%), Q-wave myocardial infarction (5.1% vs 4.0%), or the composite of death or myocardial infarction (7.1% vs 7.0%) between the stent and CABG groups (P = not significant for all comparisons). However, at 2-year follow up, patients with stents were more likely to require >or=1 repeat revascularization procedure (32.0% vs 4.5%, P <.001). The initial cost of multivessel stenting was 43% less than the cost of CABG (11,810 dollars vs 20,574 dollars, P <.001) and remained 27% less (17,634 dollars vs 24,288 dollars, P =.005) at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Multivessel stenting and CABG result in comparable risks of death and myocardial infarction. Despite a higher rate of repeat revascularization, multivessel stenting was significantly less costly than CABG through the first 2 years of follow-up.
Authors: Maria Tafelmeier; Teresa Weizenegger; Sarah Ripfel; Miriam Fauser; Bernhard Floerchinger; Daniele Camboni; York Zausig; Sigrid Wittmann; Marzena A Drzymalski; Florian Zeman; Christof Schmid; Lars S Maier; Stefan Wagner; Michael Arzt Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: James K Min; Amanda Gilmore; Erica C Jones; Daniel S Berman; Wijnand J Stuijfzand; Leslee J Shaw; Ken O'Day; Ibrahim Danad Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 1.605