The evolving costs of intracoronary stents

Reduced incidence of clinical restenosis with newer generation stents, stent oversizing, and high-pressure deployment: single-operator experience

BACKGROUND

Over the last 4 years, several newer generation stents have become available, promising to change the scenery of coronary angioplasty (PTCA) with its attendant restenosis rate.

HYPOTHESIS

The aim of this study was to review prospectively the results of a single operator adopting a uniform approach with approximately 0.5 mm stent oversizing and high-pressure (> or = 12-16 bar) deployment and compare them with conventional PTCA in a series of 244 consecutive patients.

METHODS

The study included 203 men and 41 women, aged 59 +/- 11 years, who presented with stable angina and/or positive exercise testing (n = 75), unstable angina (n = 161), or acute myocardial infarction (n = 8). Dilated vessels included the left anterior descending artery (n = 139), the right coronary artery (n = 86), the left circumflex artery (n = 47), the ramus branch (n = 4), or venous grafts (n = 2). Stents were implanted for dissection, suboptimal PTCA result, and electively. Two groups were compared: 83 patients who underwent balloon PTCA alone and 161 patients who also received stent(s).

RESULTS

The two groups had similar demographics, age (58 +/- 10 vs. 59 +/- 11 years), initial vessel stenosis (92 +/- 7 vs. 93 +/- 6%), and left ventricular ejection fraction (51 +/- 9 vs. 51 +/- 8%). Procedural success was also similar (97.6 vs. 99.4%), but as expected the residual stenosis was much lower in the stent group (< or = 0 vs. 17%). The following stents were employed: J & J (n = 1), NIR (n = 117), ACS (n = 59), AVE (n = 9), Inflow GoldFlex (n = 9), Crossflex (n = 5), Wictor (n = 1), Jostent (n = 16), R stent (n = 9), Seaquence (n = 2) and Wallstent (n = 1). Single stents were used in 118 patients, two stents in 31 patients, three in 6 patients, and four in 6 patients. There was one in-hospital death at 3 days unrelated to the procedure. There were no events of subacute stent thrombosis; all patients in the stent group received combined therapy with aspirin and ticlopidine, the latter for 1 month. During 18 +/- 14 months, the clinical restenosis rate was significantly lower in the stent group (6.9%) than in the PTCA group (28.4%) (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In a series of 244 consecutive patients, newer generation stents and a consistent approach of stent oversizing and high-pressure stent deployment by a single operator resulted in high procedural success (99%), lack of stent thrombosis (0%), and a very low clinical restenosis rate (7%).

A break-even price calculation for the use of sirolimus-eluting stents in angioplasty

BACKGROUND

One of the major complications of angioplasty is the early occurrence of restenosis requiring a repeat procedure. When bare-metal stents are used, clinical restenosis results in a repeat procedure in 10% to 15% of cases. Based on the results of an international, randomized clinical trial, the use of sirolimus-eluting stents reduces this risk.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to calculate the theoretical break-even price for sirolimus-eluting stents in France, the Netherlands, and the United States, and to determine the additional health care cost per patient.

METHODS

The break-even price was calculated by adding the savings resulting from a 15% decrease in the rate of clinical restenosis to the price of bare-metal stents. Costs were computed from the viewpoint of the health care system, exclusive of other societal costs.

RESULTS

The break-even prices were 1291 Euro to 1489 Euro in France, 2028 Euro in the Netherlands, and 2708 Euroin the United States (1.00 Euro = 1.00 US dollar in purchasing power parity). These results indicate that the commercial price of sirolimuseluting stents will increase hospital spending for patients undergoing angioplasty by 17% to 55% per patient.

CONCLUSION

This additional cost to the health care system should be discussed in view of possible productivity savings and improved quality of life for patients.

Provisional stenting strategies: systematic overview and implications for clinical decision-making

Coronary stents reduce the rates of abrupt closure, emergency coronary artery bypass graft surgery and restenosis, but do not prevent myocardial infarction or death at six months. The financial burden of increased stent use and the difficulty in managing in-stent restenosis have provided the impetus to develop provisional stenting strategies. Patients at low risk for restenosis after balloon angioplasty may not derive additional benefit from stent implantation and may be successfully managed with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) alone. Numerous patient, lesion and procedural predictors of restenosis have been identified. Postprocedural assessment using quantitative coronary angiography, intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), coronary flow velocity reserve (CVR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR) may further enhance the ability to predict adverse outcomes after PTCA. Several studies have been performed to investigate the feasibility of provisional stenting strategies using various modalities to identify low risk patients who could be managed with PTCA alone. An optimal or "stent-like" angiographic result after PTCA is associated with favorable clinical outcomes. Preliminary results of studies using IVUS or CVR to guide provisional stenting appear promising. Angiography alone may be inadequate to identify truly low risk patients and may need to be combined with clinical factors, assessment of recoil, IVUS or physiologic indexes. Strategies that avoid unnecessary stenting in even a small proportion of patients may have large impacts on health care costs. Provisional stenting may potentially reduce costs and rates of in-stent restenosis without compromising the quality of health care delivery.

Acute and long-term cost implications of coronary stenting

OBJECTIVES

We compared the acute and one year medical costs and outcomes of coronary stenting with those for balloon angioplasty (percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty) in contemporary clinical practice.

BACKGROUND

While coronary stent implantation reduces the need for repeat revascularization, it has been associated with significantly higher acute costs compared with coronary angioplasty.

METHODS

We studied patients treated at Duke University between September 1995 and June 1996 who received either coronary stent (n = 384) or coronary angioplasty (n = 159) and met eligibility criteria. Detailed cost data were collected initially and up to one year following the procedure. Our primary analyses compared six and 12 month cumulative costs for coronary angioplasty- and stent-treated cohorts. We also compared treatment costs after excluding nontarget vessel interventions; after limiting analysis to those without prior revascularization; and after risk-adjusting cumulative cost estimates.

RESULTS

Baseline clinical characteristics were generally similar between the two treatment groups. The mean in-hospital cost for stent patients was $3,268 higher than for those receiving coronary angioplasty ($14,802 vs. $11,534, p < 0.001). However, stent patients were less likely to be rehospitalized (22% vs. 34%, p = 0.002) or to undergo repeat revascularization (9% vs. 26%, p = 0.001) than coronary angioplasty patients within six months of the procedure. As such, mean cumulative costs at 6 months ($19,598 vs. $19,820, p = 0.18) and one year ($22,140 vs. $22,571, p = 0.26) were similar for the two treatments. Adjusting for baseline predictors of cost and selectively examining target vessel revascularization, or those without prior coronary intervention yielded similar conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

In contemporary practice, coronary stenting provides equivalent or better one-year patient outcomes without increasing cumulative health care costs.