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)

RCT Entities:   Population Interventions Outcomes