Key result
Intracoronary brachytherapy shows no significant difference in 1-year total costs versus placebo for in-stent restenosis.
Why the study?
The cost-effectiveness of intracoronary brachytherapy for treatment of in-stent restenosis was unknown despite evidence of clinical benefit.
RCT (n=252)
Randomized
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Brachytherapy improved outcomes but raised 1-year costs in Gamma-1; extends efficacy data with economic analysis for in-stent restenosis.
BACKGROUND: Recently, several randomized trials have demonstrated that intracoronary brachytherapy can reduce the rates of both angiographic and clinical restenosis in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for in-stent restenosis. Whether this practice is cost-effective is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between December 1997 and July 1998, 252 patients with in-stent restenosis were randomized to receive brachytherapy or placebo after successful PCI as part of the Gamma-1 trial. We collected detailed resource utilization and cost data for each patient's initial hospitalization and for 1 year after randomization. Compared with conventional treatment, intracoronary brachytherapy increased procedure duration, physician services, and equipment costs. As a result, initial costs were increased by nearly $4100 per patient ($15 724 versus $11 675, P<0.001). Over the 1-year follow-up period, brachytherapy reduced the need for repeat revascularization by 21% and reduced the need for bypass surgery by 44%. Although follow-up medical care costs were $2200/patient lower with brachytherapy, total costs remained higher at 1 year ($28 543 versus $26 737, P=0.46). In a sensitivity analysis that incorporated recent technical modifications and the use of prolonged antiplatelet therapy to prevent late thrombotic occlusion, follow-up cost savings increased to $3600/patient, and 1-year costs were slightly lower with brachytherapy ($26 352 versus $26 729, P=0.87). Subgroup analysis demonstrated significant cost savings in patients with diabetes and patients who did not undergo repeat stenting. CONCLUSIONS: As performed in the Gamma-1 trial, coronary brachytherapy for in-stent restenosis improved clinical outcomes but increased 1-year costs compared with standard therapy. If late thrombosis can be eliminated, however, this technology has the potential to reduce overall medical care costs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cosgrove et al. (2002) conducted an RCT in In-stent restenosis (n=252). Intracoronary brachytherapy (Gamma radiation) vs. Placebo / Conventional treatment was evaluated on Total costs at 1 year (p=0.46). Intracoronary brachytherapy for in-stent restenosis improved clinical outcomes but resulted in higher total costs at 1 year compared with placebo ($28,543 vs $26,737, P=0.46).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: