Key result
Primary coronary stenting for acute myocardial infarction increased overall 1-year costs compared with balloon angioplasty ($20,571 vs $19,595, P=0.02), with a cost-effectiveness ratio of $10,550 per repeat revascularization avoided.
Why the study?
Does coronary stenting improve cost-effectiveness compared to primary balloon angioplasty in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
RCT (n=900)
randomized
Does coronary stenting improve cost-effectiveness compared to primary balloon angioplasty in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Absolute Event Rate: 20571% vs 19595%
p-value: p=0.02
Primary stenting for AMI increases 1-year medical care costs compared with primary PTCA, with cost-effectiveness depending on the societal value of avoiding symptomatic restenosis.
Raises 1-year costs for AMI stenting; challenges cost-effectiveness versus balloon angioplasty unless restenosis avoidance is highly valued.
BACKGROUND: Although several randomized trials have demonstrated that coronary stenting improves angiographic and clinical outcomes for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the cost-effectiveness of this practice is unknown. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the long-term costs and cost-effectiveness (C/E) of coronary stenting compared with primary balloon angioplasty as treatment for AMI. Methods and Results- Between December 1996 and November 1997, 900 patients with AMI were randomized to undergo balloon angioplasty (PTCA, n=448) or coronary stenting (n=452). Detailed resource utilization and cost data were collected for each patient's initial hospitalization and for 1 year after randomization. Compared with conventional PTCA, stenting increased procedural costs by approximately $2000 per patient ($6538+/-1778 versus $4561+/-1598, P<0.001). During the 1-year follow-up period, stenting was associated with significant reductions in the need for repeat revascularization and rehospitalization. Although follow-up costs were significantly lower with stenting ($3613+/-7743 versus $4592+/-8198, P=0.03), overall 1-year costs remained approximately $1000/patient higher with stenting than with PTCA ($20 571+/-10 693 versus 19 595+/-10 990, P=0.02). The C/E ratio for stenting compared with PTCA was $10 550 per repeat revascularization avoided. In analyses that incorporated recent changes in stent technology and pricing, the 1-year cost differential fell to <$350/patient, and the C/E ratio improved to $3753 per repeat revascularization avoided. The cost-utility ratio for primary stenting was <$50 000 per quality-adjusted life year gained only if stenting did not increase 1-year mortality by >0.2% compared with PTCA. CONCLUSIONS: As performed in Stent-PAMI, primary stenting for AMI increased 1-year medical care costs compared with primary PTCA. The overall cost-effectiveness of primary stenting depends on the societal value attributed to avoidance of symptomatic restenosis, as well as on the relative mortality rates of primary PTCA and stenting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Taira et al. (2001) conducted an RCT in acute myocardial infarction (n=900). Coronary stenting vs. Primary balloon angioplasty (PTCA) was evaluated on Overall 1-year costs (p=0.02). Primary coronary stenting for acute myocardial infarction increased overall 1-year costs compared with balloon angioplasty ($20,571 vs $19,595, P=0.02), with a cost-effectiveness ratio of $10,550 per repeat revascularization avoided.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: