The Impact of General Usage of Stents on Short- and Long-Term Health Care Costs following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background: The general usage of stents during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces the need for subsequent repeated revascularizations when compared with balloon dilatation. The aim was to evaluate the impact of stenting on short- and long-term in-hospital care costs after PCI. Method and Results: Patients who underwent PCI from July 1992 to June 1993 (group A, n = 166; 4.2% stents) and from July 1996 to June 1997 (group B, n = 233; 61.4% stents) were included. The clinical outcome and all in-hospital care costs during 2.5 years following the procedures were analyzed. During the study period the number of deaths and acute myocardial infarctions was similar in the groups, but repeated revascularization occurred more often in group A than in group B (53.6 vs. 39.5%; p = 0.007). The initial procedural cost per patient was higher in group B than in group A (EUR 7,653 ± 5,071 vs. EUR 6,048 ± 3,242; p = 0.002), but after 2.5 years the costs were similar in the 2 groups (not significant). Conclusion: General usage of stents increases immediate health care cost compared with balloon dilatation, but despite reduction in subsequent revascularization, there is no reduction in long-term in-hospital costs.

Related collections

Most cited references 12

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

A comparison of balloon-expandable-stent implantation with balloon angioplasty in patients with coronary artery disease. Benestent Study Group.

Patrick W. Serruys, Peter P.T.h. de Jaegere, Ferdinand Kiemeneij … (1994)

Balloon-expandable coronary-artery stents were developed to prevent coronary restenosis after coronary angioplasty. These devices hold coronary vessels open at sites that have been dilated. However, it is unknown whether stenting improves long-term angiographic and clinical outcomes as compared with standard balloon angioplasty. A total of 520 patients with stable angina and a single coronary-artery lesion were randomly assigned to either stent implantation (262 patients) or standard balloon angioplasty (258 patients). The primary clinical end points were death, the occurrence of a cerebrovascular accident, myocardial infarction, the need for coronary-artery bypass surgery, or a second percutaneous intervention involving the previously treated lesion, either at the time of the initial procedure or during the subsequent seven months. The primary angiographic end point was the minimal luminal diameter at follow-up, as determined by quantitative coronary angiography. After exclusions, 52 patients in the stent group (20 percent) and 76 patients in the angioplasty group (30 percent) reached a primary clinical end point (relative risk, 0.68; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.50 to 0.92; P = 0.02). The difference in clinical-event rates was explained mainly by a reduced need for a second coronary angioplasty in the stent group (relative risk, 0.58; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.40 to 0.85; P = 0.005). The mean (+/- SD) minimal luminal diameters immediately after the procedure were 2.48 +/- 0.39 mm in the stent group and 2.05 +/- 0.33 mm in the angioplasty group; at follow-up, the diameters were 1.82 +/- 0.64 mm in the stent group and 1.73 +/- 0.55 mm in the angioplasty group (P = 0.09), which correspond to rates of restenosis (diameter of stenosis, > or = 50 percent) of 22 and 32 percent, respectively (P = 0.02). Peripheral vascular complications necessitating surgery, blood transfusion, or both were more frequent after stenting than after balloon angioplasty (13.5 vs. 3.1 percent, P < 0.001). The mean hospital stay was significantly longer in the stent group than in the angioplasty group (8.5 vs. 3.1 days, P < 0.001). Over seven months of follow-up, the clinical and angiographic outcomes were better in patients who received a stent than in those who received standard coronary angioplasty. However, this benefit was achieved at the cost of a significantly higher risk of vascular complications at the access site and a longer hospital stay.

0 comments Cited 234 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Complementary clinical benefits of coronary-artery stenting and blockade of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptors. Evaluation of Platelet IIb/IIIa Inhibition in Stenting Investigators.

Samuel Cohen, D Moliterno, Timothy Booth … (1999)

Inhibition of the platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor with the monoclonal-antibody fragment abciximab reduces the acute ischemic complications associated with percutaneous coronary revascularization, whereas coronary-stent implantation reduces restenosis. We conducted a trial to determine the efficacy of abciximab and stent implantation in improving long-term outcome. A total of 2399 patients were randomly assigned to stent implantation and placebo, stent implantation and abciximab, or balloon angioplasty and abciximab. The patients were followed for six months. At six months, the incidence of the composite end point of death or myocardial infarction was 11.4 percent in the group that received a stent and placebo, as compared with 5.6 percent in the group that received a stent and abciximab (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.33 to 0.68; P<0.001) and 7.8 percent in the group assigned to balloon angioplasty and abciximab (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.49 to 0.92; P=0.01). The hazard ratio for stenting plus abciximab as compared with angioplasty plus abciximab was 0.70 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.48 to 1.04; P=0.07). The rate of repeated revascularization of the target vessel was 10.6 percent in the stent-plus-placebo group, as compared with 8.7 percent in the stent-plus-abciximab group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.59 to 1.13; P=0.22) and 15.4 percent in the angioplasty-plus-abciximab group (hazard ratio, 1.49; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.13 to 1.97; P=0.005). The hazard ratio for stenting plus abciximab as compared with angioplasty plus abciximab was 0.55 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.41 to 0.74; P<0.001). Among patients with diabetes, the combination of abciximab and stenting was associated with a lower rate of repeated target-vessel revascularization (8.1 percent) than was stenting and placebo (16.6 percent, P=0.02) or angioplasty and abciximab (18.4 percent, P=0.008). For coronary revascularization, abciximab and stent implantation confer complementary long-term clinical benefits.

0 comments Cited 18 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Stenting in Chronic Coronary Occlusion (SICCO): a randomized, controlled trial of adding stent implantation after successful angioplasty.

Per Sirnes, Svein Gold, Yngvar Myreng … (1996)

This study investigated whether stenting improves long-term results after recanalization of chronic coronary occlusions. Restenosis is common after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) of chronic coronary occlusions. Stenting has been suggested as a means of improving results, but its use has not previously been investigated in a randomized trial. We randomly assigned 119 patients with a satisfactory result after successful recanalization by PTCA of a chronic coronary occlusion to 1) a control (PTCA) group with no other intervention, or 2) a group in which PTCA was followed by implantation of Palmaz-Schatz stents with full anticoagulation. Coronary angiography was performed before randomization, after stenting and at 6-month follow-up. Inguinal bleeding was more frequent in the stent group. There were no deaths. One patient with stenting had a myocardial infarction. Subacute occlusion within 2 weeks occurred in four patients in the stent group and in three in the PTCA group. At follow-up, 57% of patients with stenting were free from angina compared with 24% of patients with PTCA only (p or = 50% diameter stenosis) developed in 32% of patients with stenting and in 74% of patients with PTCA only (p < 0.001); reocclusion occurred in 12% and 26%, respectively (p = 0.058). Minimal lumen diameter (mean +/- SD) at follow-up was 1.92 +/- 0.95 mm and 1.11 +/- 0.78 mm, respectively (p < 0.001). Target lesion revascularization within 300 days was less frequent in patients with stenting than in patients with PTCA only (22% vs. 42%, p = 0.025). Stent implantation improved long-term angiographic and clinical results after PTCA of chronic coronary occlusions and is thus recommended regardless of the primary PTCA result.

0 comments Cited 12 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (publisher-id): CRD

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Cardiology

Journal ID (doi): 10.1159/issn.0008-6312

Title: Cardiology

Publisher: S. Karger AG

ISSN (Print): 0008-6312

ISSN (Electronic): 1421-9751

Publication date Subscription-year: 2008

Publication date (Print): January 2008

Publication date (Electronic): 03 August 2007

Volume: 109

Issue: 2

Pages: 85-92

Affiliations

^aDepartment of Cardiology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, and ^bDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Uppsala Akademiska Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden

Article

Publisher ID: 105547 Other ID: Cardiology 2008;109:85–92

DOI: 10.1159/000105547

PubMed ID: 17664872

License:

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.