BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that off-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) is as safe and effective as on-pump CABG, and the cost of initial hospitalization for off-pump CABG is less expensive than on-pump CABG. However, it is uncertain whether the cost savings are sustained over a longer period of time. OBJECTIVE: To assess in-hospital and one-year direct medical costs of off-pump CABG versus on-pump CABG in the context of the Canadian health care system. METHODS AND RESULTS: From March 2001 to December 2002, 1657 consecutive patients enrolled in the Canadian Off-Pump CABG Registry were compared with 1693 consecutive on-pump patients from Hamilton Health Sciences CABG database. At one year, patients of both groups were followed by telephone interview. An economic analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, and the data analysis was based on propensity score-matched registry patients (1233 pairs) to ensure the comparability of the two study groups. Clinical event and resource use information was collected from all patients. Unit costs from the Hamilton Health Sciences case-costing system were used to estimate hospital costs; all costs were reported in 2003 Canadian dollars. Sensitivity analyses were performed to account for uncertainties. The cost of initial hospitalization for off-pump CABG was significantly less than on-pump CABG (11,744 dollars versus 13,720 dollars, P < 0.001). Although follow-up costs were similar between the groups, the one-year total cost per patient for off-pump CABG remained significantly less than on-pump CABG (12,063 dollars versus 14,141 dollars, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Off-pump CABG offers significant savings during initial hospitalization that are also sustained after one year.
BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that off-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) is as safe and effective as on-pump CABG, and the cost of initial hospitalization for off-pump CABG is less expensive than on-pump CABG. However, it is uncertain whether the cost savings are sustained over a longer period of time. OBJECTIVE: To assess in-hospital and one-year direct medical costs of off-pump CABG versus on-pump CABG in the context of the Canadian health care system. METHODS AND RESULTS: From March 2001 to December 2002, 1657 consecutive patients enrolled in the Canadian Off-Pump CABG Registry were compared with 1693 consecutive on-pump patients from Hamilton Health Sciences CABG database. At one year, patients of both groups were followed by telephone interview. An economic analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, and the data analysis was based on propensity score-matched registry patients (1233 pairs) to ensure the comparability of the two study groups. Clinical event and resource use information was collected from all patients. Unit costs from the Hamilton Health Sciences case-costing system were used to estimate hospital costs; all costs were reported in 2003 Canadian dollars. Sensitivity analyses were performed to account for uncertainties. The cost of initial hospitalization for off-pump CABG was significantly less than on-pump CABG (11,744 dollars versus 13,720 dollars, P < 0.001). Although follow-up costs were similar between the groups, the one-year total cost per patient for off-pump CABG remained significantly less than on-pump CABG (12,063 dollars versus 14,141 dollars, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Off-pump CABG offers significant savings during initial hospitalization that are also sustained after one year.
Authors: R Ascione; S Williams; C T Lloyd; T Sundaramoorthi; A A Pitsis; G D Angelini Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Nimesh D Desai; Marc P Pelletier; Hari R Mallidi; George T Christakis; Gideon N Cohen; Stephen E Fremes; Bernard S Goldman Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-09-14 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: A Lamy; Forough Farrokhyar; Rosanne Kent; Xiaoyin Wang; Kelly M Smith; John C Mullen; Michel Carrier; Anson Cheung; Richard Baillot Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Frank W Sellke; J Michael DiMaio; Louis R Caplan; T Bruce Ferguson; Timothy J Gardner; Loren F Hiratzka; Eric M Isselbacher; Bruce W Lytle; Michael J Mack; John M Murkin; Robert C Robbins Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-05-31 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Andre Lamy; Bengt Jönsson; William S Weintraub; Feng Zhao; Susan Chrolavicius; Ameet Bakhai; Steven Culler; Amiram Gafni; Peter Lindgren; Elizabeth Mahoney; Salim Yusuf Journal: Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil Date: 2004-12
Authors: Hendrik M Nathoe; Diederik van Dijk; Erik W L Jansen; Willem J L Suyker; Jan C Diephuis; Wim-Jan van Boven; Aart Brutel de la Rivière; Cornelius Borst; Cor J Kalkman; Diederick E Grobbee; Erik Buskens; Peter P T de Jaegere Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-01-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mario Gaudino; Gianni D Angelini; Charalambos Antoniades; Faisal Bakaeen; Umberto Benedetto; Antonio M Calafiore; Antonino Di Franco; Michele Di Mauro; Stephen E Fremes; Leonard N Girardi; David Glineur; Juan Grau; Guo-Wei He; Carlo Patrono; John D Puskas; Marc Ruel; Thomas A Schwann; Derrick Y Tam; James Tatoulis; Robert Tranbaugh; Michael Vallely; Marco A Zenati; Michael Mack; David P Taggart Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-08-21 Impact factor: 5.501