[Can PCI with drug-eluting stents replace coronary artery bypass surgery? A comparative economic analysis regarding both therapeutic options based on clinical 12-month data reflecting the German social health care insurance system].

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: It is generally known and accepted that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has undergone a patient-relevant innovation with the introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES): prospective, randomized, controlled studies with a primary clinical endpoint have shown that DES, especially those releasing sirolimus from a polymer (SES) or those releasing paclitaxel from a polymer (PES), significantly and relevantly reduce the restenosis rate and hence the number of needed reinterventions in the target vessel (target vessel revascularization [TVR]) as compared to bare metal stents (BMS). For this improvement of quality of life, cost-effectiveness analyses comparing DES and BMS in the US and German health care systems have been reported. For the comparison of DES and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG), no economic data regarding the German health care system have been published. The goal of the present study is to provide such an economic analysis investigating the question whether DES can reduce costs as compared to CABG within the German health care system.

METHODS: Based on the clinical data for PCI with a PES for long and complex lesions (TAXUS VI) and for CABG (ARTS I), the comparison was calculated for the time interval of 1 year. The analysis of the PCI group was derived from a TVR of 11% including a CABG rate of 1%; the CABG group analysis was based on a TVR of 3.8% including a PCI rate of 3.1% and a re-CABG rate of 0.7%. At a stent factor of 2.75, the costs per stent were calculated to be 250 Euro for the BMS and 1,500 Euro for the PES. The total costs for 12 months included the follow-up costs for reinterventions. The results were tested for stability according to a sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS: Patients' demographics were well comparable between the PCI and the CABG groups. The primary costs, including the reinterventions, were 7,841 Euro for PCI and 12,415 Euro for CABG. The sensitivity analysis revealed that only at more than eight stents per patient and a need for reintervention of ca. 10% did the cost of PCI with PES reach the level of the cost for CABG.

CONCLUSION: Within the German health care system, in patients with a social insurance, PCI of long and complex lesions with PES significantly reduces costs as compared to CABG to the amount of 4,574 Euro per patient. The cost-effectiveness analyses of currently ongoing prospective, randomized trials (SYNTAX und FREEDOM) will provide more insight into the economic comparison of PCI with DES and CABG.