Key result
CABG increased lifetime costs by $21,551 and quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.49 QALYs compared with PCI, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $44,235/QALY.
Why the study?
Although the EXCEL trial showed no 5-year difference in death, stroke, or MI between CABG and PCI for left main coronary artery disease, all-cause mortality was higher with PCI, and long-term cost-effectiveness had not been evaluated.
Does CABG improve cost-effectiveness compared to PCI in patients with left main coronary artery disease?
RCT (n=1,905)
randomized
Does CABG improve cost-effectiveness compared to PCI in patients with left main coronary artery disease?
Effect estimate: ICER $44,235/QALY
Based on the EXCEL trial, CABG is an economically attractive revascularization strategy compared with PCI over a lifetime horizon for left main disease, though this is highly sensitive to long-term mortality assumptions.
Higher mortality with PCI in left main disease warrants caution in revascularization choice; leaves open cost-effectiveness comparisons.
BACKGROUND: The EXCEL trial (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) demonstrated in patients with left main coronary artery disease, no significant difference between coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with everolimus-eluting stents for the composite end point of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 5 years. However, all-cause mortality at 5 years was higher with PCI. Long-term cost-effectiveness of these 2 strategies has heretofore not been evaluated. METHODS: From 2010 to 2014, 1905 patients with left main coronary artery disease were randomized to CABG (n=957) or PCI (n=948). Costs ($2019) were assessed over 5 years using resource-based costing and Medicare reimbursement rates. Health utilities were assessed using the EuroQOL 5-dimension questionnaire. Five-year EXCEL data in combination with US lifetables were used to develop a Markov model to evaluate lifetime cost-effectiveness. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was considered highly cost-effective. RESULTS: <0.001). Cumulative 5-year costs were $20 449/patient higher with CABG. CABG was projected to increase lifetime costs by $21 551 while increasing quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.49 QALYs, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $44 235/QALY. In a post hoc sensitivity analysis using mortality hazard ratios from a meta-analysis of all randomized CABG versus PCI in left main disease trials, the gain associated with CABG was 0.08 to 0.14 QALYs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $139 775 to $232 710/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Based on data from the EXCEL trial, CABG is an economically attractive revascularization strategy compared with PCI over a lifetime horizon for patients with significant left main coronary artery disease. However, this conclusion is sensitive to the long-term mortality rates with the 2 strategies, and CABG is no longer highly cost-effective when substituting the pooled treatment effect from the 4 major PCI versus CABG trials for left main disease. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01205776.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Magnuson et al. (2022) conducted an RCT in left main coronary artery disease (n=1,905). Coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) vs. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with everolimus-eluting stents was evaluated on Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained (ICER $44,235/QALY). CABG increased lifetime costs by $21,551 and quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.49 QALYs compared with PCI, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $44,235/QALY.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: