Cost analysis of current therapies for limited coronary artery revascularization.

BACKGROUND

Single or double (limited) coronary artery revascularization using percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and coronary artery bypass (CAB) surgery has recently been enhanced with further innovation in intracoronary stenting and the emergence of minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) grafting. Resource allocation for all modalities is directly dependent on hospitalization costs, length of stay, and clinical results.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Four groups of 25 consecutive patients over 9 months at a single center received either PTCA, stenting, MIDCAB, or conventional CAB for single-vessel coronary disease, primarily of the left anterior descending circulation. Day, supply, and procedural charges were evaluated, along with the total hospital charge. Postprocedural length of stay was calculated and compared with a national database. MIDCAB surgery day charges were less than stenting but greater than PTCA, MIDCAB supply charges were the least of all groups, and MIDCAB procedural charges were less than for conventional CAB. Total charges for MIDCAB grafting were less than for stenting but greater than for PTCA. Postprocedural length of stay for MIDCAB patients was equivalent to PTCA patients and significantly less than for stenting or for conventional CAB.

CONCLUSIONS

MIDCAB grafting provides a new surgical approach that is comparable in charges to catheter-based interventions. The technique markedly reduces length of stay and perioperative morbidity. The selection of medical or surgical limited coronary revascularization can now be based primarily on clinical outcomes without consideration for associated resource allocation.