Cost and health outcome of primary percutaneous coronary intervention versus thrombolysis in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-Results of the Swedish Early Decision reperfusion Study (SWEDES) trial.

BACKGROUND In ST-elevation myocardial infarction, primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has a superior clinical outcome, but it may increase costs in comparison to thrombolysis. The aim of the study was to compare costs, clinical outcome, and quality-adjusted survival between primary PCI and thrombolysis. METHODS Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction were randomized to primary PCI with adjunctive enoxaparin and abciximab (n = 101), or to enoxaparin followed by reteplase (n = 104). Data on the use of health care resources, work loss, and health-related quality of life were collected during a 1-year period. Cost-effectiveness was determined by comparing costs and quality-adjusted survival. The joint distribution of incremental costs and quality-adjusted survival was analyzed using a nonparametric bootstrap approach. RESULTS Clinical outcome did not differ significantly between the groups. Compared with the group treated with thrombolysis, the cost of interventions was higher in the PCI-treated group ($4,602 vs $3,807; P = .047), as well as the cost of drugs ($1,309 vs $1,202; P = .001), whereas the cost of hospitalization was lower ($7,344 vs $9,278; P = .025). The cost of investigations, outpatient care, and loss of production did not differ significantly between the 2 treatment arms. Total cost and quality-adjusted survival were $25,315 and 0.759 vs $27,819 and 0.728 (both not significant) for the primary PCI and thrombolysis groups, respectively. Based on the 1-year follow-up, bootstrap analysis revealed that in 80%, 88%, and 89% of the replications, the cost per health outcome gained for PCI will be <$0, $50,000, and $100,000 respectively. CONCLUSION In a 1-year perspective, there was a tendency toward lower costs and better health outcome after primary PCI, resulting in costs for PCI in comparison to thrombolysis that will be below the conventional threshold for cost-effectiveness in 88% of bootstrap replications.

[1]  H. Suryapranata,et al.  A cost-effective analysis of primary coronary angioplasty versus thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction. , 1995, The American journal of cardiology.

[2]  G. Lamas,et al.  ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction--executive summary. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to revise the 1999 guidelines for the management of patients wi , 2004, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[3]  P. Touboul,et al.  Primary angioplasty is cost-minimizing compared with pre-hospital thrombolysis for patients within 60 min of a percutaneous coronary intervention center: the Comparison of Angioplasty and Pre-hospital Thrombolysis in Acute Myocardial Infarction (CAPTIM) cost-efficacy sub-study. , 2005, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[4]  R. Brooks EuroQol: the current state of play. , 1996, Health policy.

[5]  Michael Weis,et al.  Management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with persistent ST-segment elevation: the Task Force on the Management of ST-Segment Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction of the European Society of Cardiology. , 2008, European heart journal.

[6]  J. O’Keefe,et al.  Analysis of the relative costs and effectiveness of primary angioplasty versus tissue-type plasminogen activator: the Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction (PAMI) trial. The PAMI Trial Investigators. , 1997, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[7]  M. Simoons,et al.  Cost-utility analysis of thrombolytic therapy. , 1991, European Heart Journal.

[8]  Frans Van de Werf,et al.  Management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation. The Task Force on the Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction of the European Society of Cardiology. , 2003 .

[9]  William W O'Neill,et al.  A randomized trial of transfer for primary angioplasty versus on-site thrombolysis in patients with high-risk myocardial infarction: the Air Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction study. , 2002, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[10]  Lippincott Williams Wilkins,et al.  ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction , 2004 .

[11]  G. Nichol,et al.  Hospitalization Costs of Primary Stenting Versus Thrombolysis in Acute Myocardial Infarction: Cost Analysis of the Canadian STAT Study , 2003, Circulation.

[12]  P. Touboul,et al.  Primary angioplasty versus prehospital fibrinolysis in acute myocardial infarction: a randomised study , 2002, The Lancet.

[13]  J. Boura,et al.  Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction : a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials , 2022 .

[14]  P. Dolan,et al.  Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. , 1997, Medical care.

[15]  S. Halvorsen,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of primary percutaneous coronary intervention versus thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction , 2005, Scandinavian cardiovascular journal : SCJ.

[16]  J. Ornato,et al.  2009 Focused Updates: ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients With ST‐Elevation Myocardial Infarction (Updating the 2004 Guideline and 2007 Focused Update) and ACC/AHA/SCAI Guidelines on Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (Updating the 2005 Guideline and 2007 Focused Update) , 2009, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[17]  A. Kirtane,et al.  Comparison of very early treatment with either fibrinolysis or percutaneous coronary intervention facilitated with abciximab with respect to ST recovery and infarct-related artery epicardial flow in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the Swedish Early Decision (SWEDES) r , 2006, American heart journal.

[18]  Thrombolytic therapy vs primary percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial infarction in patients presenting to hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery: a randomized controlled trial. , 2002, JAMA.

[19]  Robert Tibshirani,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap , 1994 .

[20]  L. Levin,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of an invasive strategy in unstable coronary artery disease; results from the FRISC II invasive trial. The Fast Revascularisation during InStability in Coronary artery disease. , 2002, European heart journal.