Cost-Effectiveness of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Bypass Surgery for Patients With Left Main Disease: Results From the EXCEL Trial. (19th July 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Magnuson, Elizabeth A.; Chinnakondepalli, Khaja; Vilain, Katherine; Serruys, Patrick W.; Sabik, Joseph F.; Kappetein, A. Pieter; Stone, Gregg W.; Cohen, David J.
• Is Part Of: Circulation. Volume 15:Number 7(2022)
• Page Start: e011981
• Publication Date: 2022-07-19
• Subjects: coronary artery bypass -- coronary artery disease -- cost-benefit analysis -- drug-eluting stent -- percutaneous coronary intervention; Cardiovascular system -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Cardiovascular system -- Diseases -- Treatment -- Periodicals; 616.105
• DOI: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.122.011981
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1941-7640

Abstract

Abstract : Background: The EXCEL trial (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) demonstrated in patients with left main coronary artery disease, no significant difference between coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with everolimus-eluting stents for the composite end point of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 5 years. However, all-cause mortality at 5 years was higher with PCI. Long-term cost-effectiveness of these 2 strategies has heretofore not been evaluated. Methods: From 2010 to 2014, 1905 patients with left main coronary artery disease were randomized to CABG (n=957) or PCI (n=948). Costs ($2019) were assessed over 5 years using resource-based costing and Medicare reimbursement rates. Health utilities were assessed using the EuroQOL 5-dimension questionnaire. Five-year EXCEL data in combination with US lifetables were used to develop a Markov model to evaluate lifetime cost-effectiveness. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was considered highly cost-effective. Results: Index revascularization procedure costs were $4, 850/patient higher with CABG, and total costs for the index hospitalization were $17 610/patient higher with CABG ($32 297 versus $19 687, P <0.001). Cumulative 5-year costs were $20 449/patient higher with CABG. CABG was projected to increase lifetime costs by $21 551 while increasing quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.49 QALYs, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $44 235/QALY. In a post hoc sensitivity analysis using mortality hazard ratios from a meta-analysis of all randomized CABG versus PCI in left main disease trials, the gain associated with CABG was 0.08 to 0.14 QALYs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $139 775 to $232 710/QALY gained. Conclusions: Based on data from the EXCEL trial, CABG is an economically attractive revascularization strategy compared with PCI over a lifetime horizon for patients with significant left main coronary artery disease. However, this conclusion is sensitive to the long-term mortality rates with the 2 strategies, and CABG is no longer highly cost-effective when substituting the pooled treatment effect from the 4 major PCI versus CABG trials for left main disease. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01205776.