Cost Of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Research Articles

Selective use of abciximab in coronary stenting: overall outcomes can still be equivalent to those in the EPISTENT treatment group.

BACKGROUND: The EPISTENT trial reported improved early outcomes with routine use of abciximab after coronary stenting. Increasing use of stents means that routine abciximab adds significantly to costs of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This paper reports the results of a protocol encouraging restriction of abciximab therapy to high-risk patients only. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively over a 34-month period for patients undergoing PCI with stenting. In addition to those who fulfilled criteria for inclusion in the EPISTENT trial, patients treated in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) were studied. Demographic data, procedural details and early clinical outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: Of 808 patients studied, 601 fulfilled EPISTENT inclusion criteria and comprised 367 patients (45%) treated for stable angina and 234 (30%) treated for unstable or post-infarct angina. The additional 207 patients (25%) were treated during AMI. The 808 patients received a total of 981 stents. Abciximab was given in only 88 cases (10.9%). Major adverse clinical events occurred in 39 patients (4.8%). CONCLUSION: Selective use of abciximab for patients undergoing coronary stenting can be associated with outcomes equivalent to those reported for routine use, but with significant cost savings.

In-hospital resource utilization in coronary angioplasty: the impact of increased coronary stenting rates and antiplatelet therapy.

BACKGROUND: The technique of coronary stenting has evolved over recent years, with improved stent technology and effective antiplatelet therapies to prevent stent thrombosis. In Europe, reductions in stent and equipment costs have resulted from increased market competition. The impact of these changes on the in-hospital procedural cost of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the current clinical setting is not known. METHODS: We compared the initial equipment and pharmaceutical costs of one hundred consecutive, unselected patients undergoing PCI in 1998 to a similar population who underwent PCI in 1994. RESULTS: Similar patient characteristics were noted, yet more complex disease (multivessel, AHA type B2/C lesions) was treated in the 1998 population. The stent utilization rate (83% vs 15%, p < 0.0001) and use of intravenous and/or oral antiplatelet therapy (abciximab, ticlopidine) (64% vs 4%, p < 0.0001) was higher in 1998. Similar angiographic success was achieved in each group with low complication rates. Mean hospital stay was reduced in the 1998 group (2.6 +/- 2.8 vs 4.3 +/- 3.8 days, p < 0.001). Repeat PCI was required more frequently in the 1994 population (26% vs 9%, p < 0.001). Overall there was no significant difference in the mean equipment cost between the two groups ( pound 1551 vs pound 1422, p=ns). CONCLUSION: Despite the widespread use of coronary stenting and antiplatelet therapies there appears to be no difference in current in-hospital equipment costs for PCI compared to 1994. Improved clinical outcomes in the 1998 population imply that stenting is a cost-effective therapy.