Cost comparison between two modes of palmaz schatz coronary stent implantation: Transradial bare stent technique vs. transfemoral sheath‐protected stent technique
- 1 August 1995
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Catheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis
- Vol. 35 (4) , 301-308
- https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.1810350405
Abstract
Coronary Palmaz Schatz stent implantation is usually performed by using the sheath protected stent delivery system (SDS) via the percutaneous transfemoral route. However, downsizing of PTCA equipment made transradial coronary stenting feasible. Bare stent implantation, 6F technique, increased patient mobility, reduced vascular complications and reduced hospital stay may increase cost effectiveness of this novel technique.Two well‐documented patient groups selected for elective single vessel and single lesion Palmaz Schatz stent implantation were retrospectively compared. Group A (transradial stenting; n = 35) was compared to Group B (transfemoral stenting; n = 25) derived from the Benestent population, included in our hospital. A comparison was made for three areas of interest: (1) procedural consumption of material (the number of guiding catheters, guidewires, balloon catheters and stents), (2) postprocedural need for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures for stent‐related complications, and (3) duration of hospital stay. Differences between these subjects in Group A and B were translated to hospital costs.Although more guiding catheters were used in group A (1.69 ± 0.87 vs. 1.08 ± 0.28; P=0.001), the use of the SDS contributed importantly to higher material costs in group B (cost reduction in group A; 13%). Less patients in group A required diagnostic (2 vs. 7; P=0.027) and therapeutic (0 vs. 5; P=0.01) procedures for bleeding complications (cost reduction; 93%). Hospitalization in Group A was shorter (6.4 ± 4.7 vs. 11.6 ± 9.9 days; P=0.005), caused by early and safe mobilization, less vascular complications, and preprocedural adjustment on coumadin (cost reduction; 45%). Overall, the mean cost per patient in group A was 67% of these costs in group B.Significant savings were realized with the transradial bare stent technique, by reduction of costs for angioplasty material, diagnostic and therapeutic procedures for stentrelated complications and hospital stay.Keywords
This publication has 13 references indexed in Scilit:
- Transradial artery coronary angioplastyAmerican Heart Journal, 1995
- Bailout techniques for failed coronary angioplasty using 6 french guiding cathetersCatheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis, 1994
- Percutaneous transradial artery approach for coronary Palmaz-Schatz stent implantationAmerican Heart Journal, 1994
- Improved anticoagulation management after palmaz schatz coronary stent implantation by sealing the arterial puncture site with a vascular hemostasis deviceCatheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis, 1993
- Percutaneous transradial artery approach for coronary stent implantationCatheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis, 1993
- Economics of elective coronary revascularizationJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 1993
- Angiographic and clinical outcome of intracoronary stenting: Immediate and long-term results from a large single-center experienceJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 1992
- In-hospital costs associated with new percutaneous coronary devicesThe American Journal of Cardiology, 1991
- Clinical experience with the Palmaz-Schatz coronary stent. Initial results of a multicenter study.Circulation, 1991
- Percutaneous radial artery approach for coronary angiographyCatheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis, 1989