Cost-Effectiveness of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Bypass Surgery for Patients With Left Main Disease: Results From the EXCEL Trial.

Elizabeth A Magnuson, Khaja Chinnakondepalli, Katherine Vilain, Patrick W Serruys, Joseph F Sabik, A Pieter Kappetein, Gregg W Stone, David J Cohen
{"title":"Cost-Effectiveness of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Bypass Surgery for Patients With Left Main Disease: Results From the EXCEL Trial.","authors":"Elizabeth A Magnuson,&nbsp;Khaja Chinnakondepalli,&nbsp;Katherine Vilain,&nbsp;Patrick W Serruys,&nbsp;Joseph F Sabik,&nbsp;A Pieter Kappetein,&nbsp;Gregg W Stone,&nbsp;David J Cohen","doi":"10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.122.011981","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The EXCEL trial (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) demonstrated in patients with left main coronary artery disease, no significant difference between coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with everolimus-eluting stents for the composite end point of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 5 years. However, all-cause mortality at 5 years was higher with PCI. Long-term cost-effectiveness of these 2 strategies has heretofore not been evaluated.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From 2010 to 2014, 1905 patients with left main coronary artery disease were randomized to CABG (n=957) or PCI (n=948). Costs ($2019) were assessed over 5 years using resource-based costing and Medicare reimbursement rates. Health utilities were assessed using the EuroQOL 5-dimension questionnaire. Five-year EXCEL data in combination with US lifetables were used to develop a Markov model to evaluate lifetime cost-effectiveness. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was considered highly cost-effective.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Index revascularization procedure costs were $4,850/patient higher with CABG, and total costs for the index hospitalization were $17 610/patient higher with CABG ($32 297 versus $19 687, <i>P</i><0.001). Cumulative 5-year costs were $20 449/patient higher with CABG. CABG was projected to increase lifetime costs by $21 551 while increasing quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.49 QALYs, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $44 235/QALY. In a post hoc sensitivity analysis using mortality hazard ratios from a meta-analysis of all randomized CABG versus PCI in left main disease trials, the gain associated with CABG was 0.08 to 0.14 QALYs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $139 775 to $232 710/QALY gained.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on data from the EXCEL trial, CABG is an economically attractive revascularization strategy compared with PCI over a lifetime horizon for patients with significant left main coronary artery disease. However, this conclusion is sensitive to the long-term mortality rates with the 2 strategies, and CABG is no longer highly cost-effective when substituting the pooled treatment effect from the 4 major PCI versus CABG trials for left main disease.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>URL: https://www.</p><p><strong>Clinicaltrials: </strong>gov; Unique identifier: NCT01205776.</p>","PeriodicalId":516631,"journal":{"name":"Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions","volume":" ","pages":"e011981"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.122.011981","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/7/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background: The EXCEL trial (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) demonstrated in patients with left main coronary artery disease, no significant difference between coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with everolimus-eluting stents for the composite end point of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 5 years. However, all-cause mortality at 5 years was higher with PCI. Long-term cost-effectiveness of these 2 strategies has heretofore not been evaluated.

Methods: From 2010 to 2014, 1905 patients with left main coronary artery disease were randomized to CABG (n=957) or PCI (n=948). Costs ($2019) were assessed over 5 years using resource-based costing and Medicare reimbursement rates. Health utilities were assessed using the EuroQOL 5-dimension questionnaire. Five-year EXCEL data in combination with US lifetables were used to develop a Markov model to evaluate lifetime cost-effectiveness. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was considered highly cost-effective.

Results: Index revascularization procedure costs were $4,850/patient higher with CABG, and total costs for the index hospitalization were $17 610/patient higher with CABG ($32 297 versus $19 687, P<0.001). Cumulative 5-year costs were $20 449/patient higher with CABG. CABG was projected to increase lifetime costs by $21 551 while increasing quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.49 QALYs, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $44 235/QALY. In a post hoc sensitivity analysis using mortality hazard ratios from a meta-analysis of all randomized CABG versus PCI in left main disease trials, the gain associated with CABG was 0.08 to 0.14 QALYs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $139 775 to $232 710/QALY gained.

Conclusions: Based on data from the EXCEL trial, CABG is an economically attractive revascularization strategy compared with PCI over a lifetime horizon for patients with significant left main coronary artery disease. However, this conclusion is sensitive to the long-term mortality rates with the 2 strategies, and CABG is no longer highly cost-effective when substituting the pooled treatment effect from the 4 major PCI versus CABG trials for left main disease.

Registration: URL: https://www.

Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01205776.

经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与左主干搭桥手术的成本-效果:来自EXCEL试验的结果
背景:EXCEL试验(评估XIENCE与冠状动脉搭桥手术对左主干血运重建的有效性)表明,在左主干冠状动脉疾病患者中,冠状动脉搭桥手术(CABG)与经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)联合依维莫司洗脱支架在5年的复合终点死亡、卒中或心肌梗死没有显著差异。然而,PCI组5年全因死亡率更高。这两种策略的长期成本效益迄今尚未得到评估。方法:2010 - 2014年,将1905例左主干病变患者随机分为CABG组(n=957)和PCI组(n=948)。成本(2019美元)在5年内使用基于资源的成本和医疗保险报销率进行评估。使用EuroQOL 5维问卷对卫生设施进行评估。5年的EXCEL数据与美国生命表相结合,用于开发马尔可夫模型来评估终身成本效益。结果:冠脉搭桥患者的指数重建术费用比冠脉搭桥患者高4850美元/例,冠脉搭桥患者的指数住院总费用比冠脉搭桥患者高17610美元/例(3297美元对19687美元)。结论:基于EXCEL试验的数据,对于患有严重左主干冠状动脉疾病的患者而言,冠脉搭桥是一种经济上有吸引力的血管重建术策略。然而,这一结论对两种策略的长期死亡率很敏感,并且当替代4种主要PCI与CABG试验对左主干疾病的综合治疗效果时,CABG不再具有很高的成本效益。注册:网址:https://www.Clinicaltrials: gov;唯一标识符:NCT01205776。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信