Cohen D J, Taira D A, Berezin R, Cox D A, Morice M C, Stone G W, Grines C L
Cardiovascular Data Analysis Center, Cardiovascular Division, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Circulation. 2001 Dec 18;104(25):3039-45. doi: 10.1161/hc5001.100794.
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.
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.
尽管多项随机试验表明,冠状动脉支架置入术可改善急性心肌梗死(AMI)患者的血管造影和临床预后,但这种治疗方法的成本效益尚不清楚。本研究的目的是评估与直接球囊血管成形术相比,冠状动脉支架置入术治疗AMI的长期成本和成本效益(C/E)。方法与结果——1996年12月至1997年11月期间,900例AMI患者被随机分为接受球囊血管成形术(PTCA,n = 448)或冠状动脉支架置入术(n = 452)。收集了每位患者初始住院期间以及随机分组后1年的详细资源利用和成本数据。与传统PTCA相比,支架置入术使每位患者的手术成本增加了约2000美元(6538±1778美元对4561±1598美元,P<0.001)。在1年的随访期内,支架置入术使再次血管重建和再次住院的需求显著减少。尽管支架置入术的随访成本显著降低(3613±7743美元对4592±8198美元,P = 0.03),但支架置入术的总体1年成本仍比PTCA高约1000美元/患者(20571±10693美元对19595±10990美元,P = 0.02)。与PTCA相比,支架置入术的C/E比值为每避免一次再次血管重建10550美元。在纳入支架技术和价格近期变化的分析中,1年成本差异降至<350美元/患者,C/E比值提高到每避免一次再次血管重建3753美元。仅当与PTCA相比,支架置入术使1年死亡率增加不超过0.2%时,直接支架置入术的成本效用比值才<每获得一个质量调整生命年50000美元。
如在Stent-PAMI研究中所进行的那样,与直接PTCA相比,AMI直接支架置入术增加了1年的医疗成本。直接支架置入术的总体成本效益取决于避免有症状再狭窄的社会价值,以及直接PTCA和支架置入术的相对死亡率。