Cost-Effectiveness of Coronary Stenting in Acute Myocardial Infarction

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Background — 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 ≈$2000 per patient ($6538±1778 versus $4561±1598, P P =0.03), overall 1-year costs remained ≈$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. Conclusions — 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.