Evaluation of hospitalization and follow-up care costs among patients hospitalized with ACS treated with a stent and clopidogrel

Patient-level costs of major cardiovascular conditions: a review of the international literature

OBJECTIVE

Robust cost estimates of cardiovascular (CV) events are required for assessing health care interventions aimed at reducing the economic burden of major adverse CV events. This review synthesizes international cost estimates of CV events.

METHODS

MEDLINE database was searched electronically for English language studies published during 2007-2012, with cost estimates for CV events of interest - unstable angina, myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, and CV revascularization. Included studies provided at least one estimate of patient-level direct costs in adults for any identified country. Information on study characteristics and cost estimates were collected. All costs were adjusted for inflation to 2013 values.

RESULTS

Across the 114 studies included, the average cost was US $6,466 for unstable angina, $11,664 for acute myocardial infarction, $11,686 for acute heart failure, $11,635 for acute ischemic stroke, $37,611 for coronary artery bypass graft, and $13,501 for percutaneous coronary intervention. The ranges for cost estimates varied widely across countries with US cost estimate being at least twice as high as European Union costs for some conditions. Few studies were found on populations outside the US and European Union.

CONCLUSION

This review showed wide variation in the cost of CV events within and across countries, while showcasing the continuing economic burden of CV disease. The variability in costs was primarily attributable to differences in study population, costing methodologies, and reporting differences. Reliable cost estimates for assessing economic value of interventions in CV disease are needed.

Comparison of healthcare resource utilization and costs in patients hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome managed with percutaneous coronary intervention and receiving prasugrel or ticagrelor

OBJECTIVE

To compare healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and healthcare costs in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor.

METHODS

Hospital charge master data were used to identify ACS-PCI patients aged ≥ 18 years with ≥ 1 in-hospital claim for prasugrel or ticagrelor between August 1, 2011-April 30, 2013. Treatment groups were propensity matched for baseline and index hospitalization characteristics. HCRU and costs were assessed through 90-days post-discharge. Costs were determined based on hospital-specific cost-to-charge ratios and adjusted to 2013 US dollars.

RESULTS

Before matching, ticagrelor patients were older, more-often female, and had increased cardiovascular (CV) and bleeding risks compared with prasugrel patients. Propensity-matched length of index hospital stay (4.7 vs 4.9 days, p = 0.23) and risk for all-cause [30-day: relative risk (RR) = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.73-1.0; 90-day: RR = 0.90; 95% CI = 0.80-1.0, and CV-related (30-day: RR = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.59-1.0; 90-day: RR = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.73-1.1) re-hospitalizations did not significantly differ between prasugrel and ticagrelor, respectively. Compared to ticagrelor, the propensity-matched risk of re-hospitalization for myocardial infarction (MI) (30-day: RR = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.21-0.75; 90-day: RR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.34-0.81) and an outpatient medical encounter for dyspnea (30-day: RR = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.33-0.74; 90-day: RR = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.46-0.80) were significantly lower for prasugrel patients, with no significant differences in bleeding encounters between groups (30-day: RR =  0.87; 95% CI = 0.54-1.40; 90-day: RR = 1.0; 95% CI = 0.71-1.50). Matched total healthcare costs were not significantly different between groups during the index hospitalization ($36,011 vs $37,247, p = 0.21), 30-days post-discharge ($2007 vs $2522, p = 0.48), 90-days post-discharge ($4564 vs $5242, p = 0.49), and aggregate of the index hospitalization through 90-day follow-up ($40,576 vs $42,494, p = 0.09) timeframes.

CONCLUSIONS

Re-hospitalization for MI and outpatient encounters for dyspnea were lower in prasugrel treated than in ticagrelor treated ACS-PCI patients up to 90-days post-index hospitalization discharge, with no difference in bleeding encounters or healthcare costs between the two populations. This data supports the utility of prasugrel in routine clinical practice. These findings should be considered within limitations of observational research.

Rehospitalization following percutaneous coronary intervention for commercially insured patients with acute coronary syndrome: a retrospective analysis

Background

While prior research has provided important information about readmission rates following percutaneous coronary intervention, reports regarding charges and length of stay for readmission beyond 30 days post-discharge for patients in a large cohort are limited. The objective of this study was to characterize the rehospitalization of patients with acute coronary syndrome receiving percutaneous coronary intervention in a U.S. health benefit plan.

Methods

This study retrospectively analyzed administrative claims data from a large US managed care plan at index hospitalization, 30-days, and 31-days to 15-months rehospitalization. A valid Diagnosis Related Group code (version 24) associated with a PCI claim (codes 00.66, 36.0X, 929.73, 929.75, 929.78–929.82, 929.84, 929.95/6, and G0290/1) was required to be included in the study. Patients were also required to have an ACS diagnosis on the day of admission or within 30 days prior to the index PCI. ACS diagnoses were classified by the International Statistical Classification of Disease 9 (ICD-9-CM) codes 410.xx or 411.11. Patients with a history of transient ischemic attack or stroke were excluded from the study because of the focus only on ACS-PCI patients. A clopidogrel prescription claim was required within 60 days after hospitalization.

Results

Of the 6,687 ACS-PCI patients included in the study, 5,174 (77.4%) were male, 5,587 (83.6%) were <65 years old, 4,821 (72.1%) had hypertension, 5,176 (77.4%) had hyperlipidemia, and 1,777 (26.6%) had diabetes. At index hospitalization drug-eluting stents were the most frequently used: 5,534 (82.8%). Of the 4,384 patients who completed the 15-month follow-up, a total of 1,367 (31.2%) patients were rehospitalized for cardiovascular (CV)-related events, of which 811 (59.3%) were revascularization procedures: 13 (1.0%) for coronary artery bypass graft and 798 (58.4%) for PCI. In general, rehospitalizations associated with revascularization procedures cost more than other CV-related rehospitalizations. Patients rehospitalized for revascularization procedures had the shortest median time from post-index PCI to rehospitalization when compared to the patients who were rehospitalized for other CV-related events.

Conclusions

For ACS patients who underwent PCI, revascularization procedures represented a large portion of rehospitalizations. Revascularization procedures appear to be the most frequent, most costly, and earliest cause for rehospitalization after ACS-PCI.