Primary PTCA versus thrombolysis with tPA in acute myocardial infarction: a formal cost-effectiveness analysis.

AIMS

Information concerning the cost-effectiveness of primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) compared to thrombolytic treatment with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) for the management of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is limited. The existing data are derived from studies using a wide range of intervention, re-intervention and a high rate of mortality. The present study examined the cost-effectiveness of primary PTCA compared to thrombolytic treatment with tPA in the setting of AMI by applying data from published prospective randomised studies.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a formal cost-effectiveness analysis. As estimates for "cost" of therapy we applied the reimbursement paid by the public health insurance organisations in Austria. Coronary intervention rates and re-intervention rates were extracted from published studies. Assuming a moderately reduced in-hospital mortality for patients treated with primary PTCA (4.8%) compared to tPA (6.6%) on the basis of AMI in a 60-year-old male, the estimated additional cost per life saved was 274.-ECU (95% confidence interval 231.- to 318.-ECU). However, the cost per life saved was sensitive to the given range of intervention and re-intervention rates (range 2,518.-ECU gain to 9,560.-ECU additional cost).

CONCLUSIONS

Assuming a moderate in-hospital survival benefit from treatment with primary PTCA in patients with AMI, PTCA seems to be cost effective in comparison to treatment with tPA--at least from the perspective of cost reimbursement by public health insurance organisations.