Wallstents versus plastic stents in malignant biliary obstruction: effects of stent patency of the first and second stent on patient compliance and survival

OBJECTIVES

In prospective trials in patients with malignant biliary obstruction, it has been reported that Wallstents prolong stent patency, but this does not translate into a significant survival benefit. Compared with prospective trials, however, survival may be different in clinical practice because of differences in patient compliance. We report on a retrospective, long term analysis comparing Wallstents versus plastic stents.

METHODS

Plastic endoprostheses (70 patients) and endoscopic Wallstents (95 patients) were placed in 165 consecutive patients with irresectable, malignant biliary obstruction in a first (1990-91) and second (1992-93) time period. Stent occlusion was treated by plastic stent placement.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics were quite comparable in both stent groups. Initial placement of a Wallstent resulted in an increase of median stent patency of the first (10 vs 4 months, p < 0.001) and second (8 vs 3 months, p < 0.05) stent, a decrease of additional endoscopic procedures (20 vs 58%, p < 0.005), an increase of patient compliance reflected by a decrease of patients dying with untreated stent occlusion (9 vs 30%, p < 0.001), and an increase of survival time (6.5 vs 4 months, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Initial placement of a Wallstent results in an increase of stent patency of the first and second stent. Duration of stent patency appears to have a determinant effect on patient compliance. Increased stent patency and patient compliance seem to improve survival in clinical practice.

In-hospital and one-year economic outcomes after coronary stenting or balloon angioplasty. Results from a randomized clinical trial. Stent Restenosis Study Investigators

BACKGROUND

Coronary stenting has been shown to improve initial success, reduce angiographic restenosis, and reduce the need for repeat revascularization compared with conventional balloon angioplasty (PTCA). Although previous studies have demonstrated that initial hospital costs for stenting are considerably higher than those for conventional PTCA, the impact of coronary stenting on long-term medical care costs remains unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between January 1991 and June 1993, 207 consecutive patients with symptomatic coronary disease requiring revascularization of a single coronary lesion were randomized to receive initial treatment by either PTCA (n = 105) or Palmaz-Schatz coronary stent implantation (n = 102) in the multicenter STRESS trial. Detailed resource utilization and cost data were collected for each patient's initial hospitalization and for any subsequent hospital visits for 1 year after randomization. Compared with conventional angioplasty, coronary stenting resulted in additional catheterization laboratory costs, increased vascular complications, and longer length of stay. Initial hospital costs were thus approximately $2200 higher for stenting than for PTCA ($9738 +/- 3248 versus $7505 +/- 5015; P < .001). Over the first year of follow-up, however, patients assigned to initial stenting were less likely to require rehospitalization for a cardiac condition and underwent fewer subsequent revascularization procedures. Follow-up medical care costs thus tended to be lower for stenting than for conventional angioplasty ($1918 +/- 4841 versus $3359 +/- 7100, P = .21). Nonetheless, cumulative 1-year medical care costs remained higher for patients undergoing initial stenting ($11,656 +/- 5674 versus $10,865 +/- 9073, P < .001). Even after adjustment for the higher incidence of vascular complications in the stent group, total 1-year costs were $300 higher for stenting than for balloon angioplasty.

CONCLUSIONS

Elective coronary stenting, as performed in the randomized STRESS trial, increased total 1-year medical care costs by approximately $800 per patient compared with conventional angioplasty. Future studies will be necessary to determine whether ongoing refinements in stent design, implantation techniques, and anticoagulation regimens can narrow this cost difference further by reducing stent-related vascular complications or length of stay.

Cost comparison between two modes of Palmaz Schatz coronary stent implantation: transradial bare stent technique vs. transfemoral sheath-protected stent technique

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%).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Coronary stenting: costly or cost-effective?

In today's health care climate, decisions about new technologies need to reflect measures of cost as well as clinical benefit. By estimating the cost-effectiveness ratio for a new treatment compared to a current standard (e.g., stenting as compared to conventional PTCA), it is possible to decide whether the new treatment represents an efficient use of limited health care resources. In this analysis, stenting carried a $2500 greater in-hospital cost, which was partially defrayed by a $1900 savings in follow-up costs due to reductions in abrupt closure and restenosis. The net $600 increase in cumulative costs for stenting "bought" additional quality-adjusted life expectancy at a cost-effectiveness ratio of $33,700/QALY over conventional angioplasty, giving stenting a cost-effectiveness comparable to many other accepted medical therapies. Any future reduction in stent costs (e.g., by reducing length of stay or vascular complications) would improve this estimate of relative cost-effectiveness.

Evaluating the potential cost-effectiveness of stenting as a treatment for symptomatic single-vessel coronary disease. Use of a decision-analytic model

BACKGROUND

Coronary stenting appears to provide more predictable immediate results and lower rates of restenosis than conventional balloon angioplasty for selected lesion types, but its hospital costs are significantly higher. This study was designed to evaluate the potential cost-effectiveness of Palmaz-Schatz coronary stenting relative to conventional balloon angioplasty for the treatment of patients with symptomatic, single-vessel coronary disease.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We developed a decision-analytic model to predict quality-adjusted life expectancy and lifetime treatment costs for patients with symptomatic, single-vessel coronary disease treated by either Palmaz-Schatz stenting (PSS) or conventional angioplasty (PTCA). Estimates of the probabilities of overall procedural success (PTCA, 97%; PSS, 98%), abrupt closure requiring emergency bypass surgery (PTCA, 1.0%; PSS, 0.6%), and angiographic restenosis (PTCA, 37%; PSS, 20%) were derived from review of the literature published as of September 1993. Procedural costs were based on the true economic (ie, variable) costs of each procedure at Boston's Beth Israel Hospital. On the basis of these data, coronary stenting was estimated to result in a higher quality-adjusted life expectancy than conventional angioplasty but to incur additional costs as well. Compared with conventional angioplasty, stenting had an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $23,600 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Although the cost-effectiveness ratio for stenting changed with variations in assumptions about the relative costs and restenosis rates, it remained less than $40,000 per quality-adjusted year of life gained--and thus was similar to many other accepted medical treatments--unless the stent angiographic restenosis rate was > 23%, the angioplasty restenosis rate was < 34%, or the cost of stenting (including vascular complications) exceeded that of conventional angioplasty by more than $3000. The alternative strategy of secondary stenting (initial angioplasty followed by stenting only for symptomatic restenosis) was estimated to be both less effective and less cost-effective than primary stenting over a wide range of plausible assumptions and thus does not appear to be cost-effective when primary stenting is also an option.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision-analytic modeling can be used to evaluate the potential cost-effectiveness of new coronary interventions. Our analysis suggests that despite its higher cost, elective coronary stenting may be a reasonably cost-effective treatment for selected patients with single-vessel coronary disease. Primary stenting is unlikely to be cost-effective for lesions with a low probability of restenosis (eg, < 30%) or for patients for whom the cost of stenting is expected to be much higher than usual (eg, because of a high risk of vascular complications). Given the sensitivity of the cost-effectiveness ratios to even modest variations in the relative restenosis rates and cost estimates, future studies will be necessary to determine more precisely the cost-effectiveness of coronary stenting for specific patient and lesion subsets.

Prospective comparison of external sphincter balloon dilatation and prosthesis placement with external sphincterotomy in spinal cord injured men

The purpose of our investigation was to compare external sphincterotomy, the traditional method of treatment of detrusor-external sphincter dyssynergia (DESD), with two newer methods, balloon dilatation or internal stenting of the external sphincter. Sixty-one spinal cord injured (SCI) men were prospectively evaluated. The indications for treatment were DESD and voiding pressure greater than 60 cmH2O demonstrated during video-urodynamic study. Twenty patients were treated with balloon dilatation of the external sphincter, 26 with an internal stent prosthesis, and 15 with traditional external sphincterotomy. Age and duration of SCI were similar among the three treatment groups. A significant decrease in both voiding pressure and residual urine from presurgery levels persisted during the follow-up period of 3 to 26 months (mean, 15 months) in all three groups. Bladder capacity remained constant, renal function improved or stabilized, and autonomic dysreflexia (AD) improved in all three groups. Balloon dilatation and prosthesis placement are associated with a significantly shorter length of surgery (p = 0.045), length of hospitalization (p = 0.005), decrease in hospitalization cost (p = 0.01), and decrease in hemoglobin postoperatively (p = 0.046) when compared to external sphincterotomy. Complications of stent insertion included device migration (three patients) and secondary bladder neck obstruction (two patients). In the balloon dilatation group, three recurrent sphincter obstructions, one case of bleeding requiring transfusion, and one case of bulbous urethral stricture occurred. After external sphincterotomy, two patients developed recurrent obstruction, two required blood transfusion, and 1 patient noted erectile dysfunction. Balloon dilatation and prosthesis placement both proved to be as effective as external sphincterotomy in the treatment of DESD.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Metal stents for malignant biliary obstruction

The main problem in the palliative treatment of malignant biliary obstruction is recurrent jaundice and cholangitis due to clogging of the endoprostheses. Large-bore metal stents, which can be placed using small-sized delivery systems, have been recognized as an important gain. Their use has facilitated the percutaneous drainage procedure. The long-term patency rates of both endoscopically and percutaneously placed metal stents seem to be better than those of conventional stents. Although the long-term economical aspects are in favor of metal stents due ot the decreased need for readmissions and reinterventions, the high initial costs of metal stents constitute the main obstacle to their wide-spread use.

A controlled trial of an expansile metal stent for palliation of esophageal obstruction due to inoperable cancer

BACKGROUND

Esophageal obstruction due to cancer can produce debilitating dysphagia. Rapid palliation is usually possible with endoscopic placement of a plastic esophageal prosthesis, but this device has a high rate of complications. A new alternative is a metal-mesh stent that collapses to 3 mm in diameter at placement but can then expand up to 16 mm.

METHODS

Patients with esophageal carcinoma (39 patients) or malignant extrinsic obstruction (3 patients) were randomly assigned to treatment with either a plastic prosthesis (16 mm in diameter) or an expansile metal-mesh stent. The patients were evaluated every six weeks until death. The degree of palliation was expressed as a dysphagia score and a Karnofsky performance score.

RESULTS

Complications were significantly less frequent with the metal stents than with the plastic prostheses (no complications vs. nine; P < 0.001). The dysphagia and Karnofsky scores improved significantly and to a similar degree in both treatment groups. The most common causes of recurrent dysphagia were migration of the plastic prostheses (five patients) and ingrowth or overgrowth of the metal stents by tumor (five patients). The rates of reintervention were similar in both treatment groups, as were the 30-day mortality rates. The period of hospitalization after placement of a prosthesis was significantly longer in the group given plastic prostheses than in the group given metal stents (mean +/- SE, 12.5 +/- 2.1 vs. 5.4 +/- 1.0 days; P = 0.005). Despite their higher initial cost, the metal stents were cost effective because of the absence of fatal complications and the decrease in the hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Expansile metal stents are a safe and cost-effective alternative to conventional plastic endoprostheses in the treatment of esophageal obstruction due to inoperable cancer.

Economics of elective coronary revascularization. Comparison of costs and charges for conventional angioplasty, directional atherectomy, stenting and bypass surgery

OBJECTIVES

This study was designed to evaluate more closely the true in-hospital costs of elective revascularization by directional coronary atherectomy and intracoronary stenting and to compare these costs with those of the traditional revascularization alternatives (i.e., conventional balloon angioplasty and coronary artery bypass surgery).

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have suggested that total hospital charges for directional coronary atherectomy or intracoronary stenting are significantly higher than those for conventional angioplasty. However, hospital charges do not necessarily reflect true economic costs, and their use may provide misleading data with regard to cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

We analyzed in-hospital charges from the itemized hospital accounts of 300 patients undergoing elective angioplasty, directional atherectomy, Palmaz-Schatz coronary stenting or bypass surgery between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 1991. Costs were then derived by adjusting itemized patient accounts for department-specific cost/charge ratios. Catheterization laboratory costs were based on actual resource consumption, and daily room costs were adjusted for the intensity of nursing services provided.

RESULTS

Length of hospital stay was similar for atherectomy (2.3 +/- 1.5 days) and conventional angioplasty (2.6 +/- 1.7 days) but significantly longer for stenting (5.5 +/- 2.6 days, p < 0.05). Total costs were also significantly higher for coronary stenting ($7,878 +/- $3,270, median $6,699, p < 0.05) than for angioplasty ($5,396 +/- $2,829, median $4,753) or atherectomy ($5,726 +/- $2,716, median $4,986). However, length of stay, resource consumption (laboratory and radiologic testing, drugs, blood products, for example) and total costs for bypass surgery were still greater than for any of the percutaneous interventional procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to previous studies utilizing only hospital charges, the in-hospital costs of angioplasty and directional coronary atherectomy were similar. Although the cost of coronary stenting was approximately $2,500 higher than that of conventional angioplasty, the magnitude of this difference was smaller than the $6,300 increment previously suggested on the basis of analysis of hospital charges. These findings reflect the inherent discrepancies between cost-based and charge-based methodologies and may have important implications for future studies evaluating the relative cost-effectiveness of newer coronary interventions.

[More successful and cost effective--the non-transendoscopic method of TPCD]

With TPCD best results are gained with large diameter endoprostheses. In this instance special duodenoscopes with a working channel of 3.2 or 4.2 mm are needed for the implantation of 10 or 12 French endoprostheses. Alternatively, using the non-transendoscopic technique large diameter endoprostheses of 14 or more French can be implanted independently from the diameter of the working channel with conventional endoscopes. We have used this method developed at our institution in 1204 patients since 1982 and compared its results with 192 patients in whom the transendoscopic technique with 7-10 French endoprostheses was administered. The success-rate (non-transendoscopic technique 94 vs transendoscopic technique 79%), early complications (5 vs 11%), method-specific mortality (0.3 vs 1%), in-hospital mortality (3.6 vs 21%) and late complications (19 vs 33%) are clearly in favour of the non-transendoscopic approach. The higher rate of early complications and consecutively higher in-hospital mortality of the transendoscopic method with 7-10 French endoprostheses was mainly due to frequent episodes of early cholangitis due to insufficient biliary drainage. The higher success-rate of the non-transendoscopic approach is method specific ("Prothesenleger" guidable). A change of the endoscope is not necessary in contradiction to the transendoscopic method. Additional costs of special duodenoscopes that can be used neither for ERCP nor sphincterotomy are superfluous.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Randomised trial of self-expanding metal stents versus polyethylene stents for distal malignant biliary obstruction

Self-expanding metal stents are claimed to prolong biliary-stent patency, although no formal comparative trial between plastic and expandable stents has been done. In a prospective randomised trial, we assigned 105 patients with irresectable distal bile-duct malignancy to receive either a metal stent (49) or a straight polyethylene stent (56). Median patency of the first stent was significantly prolonged in patients with a metal stent compared with those with a polyethylene stent (273 vs 126 days; p = 0.006). The major cause of stent dysfunction was tumour ingrowth in the metal-stent group and sludge deposition in the polyethylene-stent group. Treatment after any occlusion included placement of a polyethylene stent. In the metal-stent group none of 14 second stents occluded, whereas 11 of 23 (48%) second stents clogged in the polyethylene-stent group (p = 0.002). Overall median survival was 149 days and did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis showed that initial placement of a metal stent results in a 28% decrease of endoscopic procedures. Self-expanding metal stents have a longer patency than polyethylene stents and offer adequate palliation in patients with irresectable malignant distal bile-duct obstruction.