Key result
Intravascular lithotripsy during PCI was associated with significantly lower costs than rotational atherectomy (mean difference £398; 95% CI: £181-615; P<0.001).
Why the study?
Intravascular lithotripsy is a novel alternative to rotational atherectomy for modifying heavily calcified stenoses, but real-world resource utilization and associated costs had not been compared.
Does intravascular lithotripsy reduce costs and resource utilization compared to rotational atherectomy in patients with heavily calcified coronary stenoses undergoing PCI?
Observational (n=180)
Yes
Does intravascular lithotripsy reduce costs and resource utilization compared to rotational atherectomy in patients with heavily calcified coronary stenoses undergoing PCI?
Intravascular lithotripsy may offset its higher initial device costs through lower overall resource utilization and shorter procedural times compared to rotational atherectomy in heavily calcified coronary lesions.
IVL may lower procedural costs versus RA in calcified PCI; supports economic analyses in prospective head-to-head trials.
BACKGROUND: Intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) is a novel alternative to rotational atherectomy (RA) for the modification of heavily calcified coronary stenoses prior to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We compare the real-world resource utilization and associated costs of PCI with adjunctive RA and IVL. METHODS: We compared the resource utilization, in-lab consumable costs and procedural data of 120 patients who underwent PCI with IVL from the Disrupt-CAD II study (NCT03328949) to 60 patients who underwent PCI with RA at the Golden Jubilee National Hospital, Glasgow, UK. The RA patients were consecutive and selected on the basis of being deemed suitable for IVL by an independent interventional cardiologist experienced in the use of both techniques. RESULTS: PCI with IVL was associated with significantly lower costs than PCI with RA (mean difference £ 398 [95% CI: £ 181-615]; P<0.001). Considering between-group differences, the IVL group used 4.02 fewer balloons (P<0.001), 3.03 fewer guidewires (P<0.001), 0.52 fewer guide catheters (P=0.001), 0.22 fewer guide extensions (P=0.004) and 1.03 fewer drug eluting stents (DES) (P<0.001) per case than the RA group. The IVL group had shorter procedural duration (mean difference 13.3 min [95% CI: 3.6-23.0]; P=0.008) but longer fluoroscopy times (mean difference 4.4 min [95% CI: 1.7-7.1]; P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In this indirect comparison, we found that the higher initial device costs of IVL may be offset by a lower overall resource utilization. Further research is required to confirm this, and future randomized trials should include a formal health economic analysis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2021 study conducted an observational in Heavily calcified coronary stenoses (n=180). Intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) vs. Rotational atherectomy (RA) was evaluated on Costs (mean difference £ 398, 95% CI 181-615, p=<0.001). Intravascular lithotripsy during PCI was associated with significantly lower costs than rotational atherectomy (mean difference £398; 95% CI: £181-615; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: