Five-year costs from a randomised comparison of bilateral and single internal thoracic artery grafts.
Aged
Ambulatory Care
/ economics
Cardiac Rehabilitation
/ economics
Coronary Artery Bypass
/ economics
Coronary Artery Disease
/ surgery
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Female
Health Care Costs
Humans
Length of Stay
/ economics
Male
Mammary Arteries
/ transplantation
Operative Time
State Medicine
Survival Rate
United Kingdom
coronary artery disease
coronary artery disease surgery
health care economics
Journal
Heart (British Cardiac Society)
ISSN: 1468-201X
Titre abrégé: Heart
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9602087
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2019
08 2019
Historique:
received:
01
08
2018
revised:
19
01
2019
accepted:
08
02
2019
pubmed:
6
4
2019
medline:
11
6
2020
entrez:
6
4
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The use of bilateral internal thoracic arteries (BITA) for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) may improve survival compared with CABG using single internal thoracic arteries (SITA). We assessed the long-term costs of BITA compared with SITA. Between June 2004 and December 2007, 3102 patients from 28 hospitals in seven countries were randomised to CABG surgery using BITA (n=1548) or SITA (n=1554). Detailed resource use data were collected from the initial hospital episode and annually up to 5 years. The associated costs of this resource use were assessed from a UK perspective with 5 year totals calculated for each trial arm and pre-selected patient subgroups. Total costs increased by approximately £1000 annually in each arm, with no significant annual difference between trial arms. Cumulative costs per patient at 5-year follow-up remained significantly higher in the BITA group (£18 629) compared with the SITA group (£17 480; mean cost difference £1149, 95% CI £330 to £1968, p=0.006) due to the higher costs of the initial procedure. There were no significant differences between the trial arms in the cost associated with healthcare contacts, medication use or serious adverse events. Higher index costs for BITA were still present at 5-year follow-up mainly driven by the higher initial cost with no subsequent difference emerging between 1 year and 5 years of follow-up. The overall cost-effectiveness of the two procedures, to be assessed at the primary endpoint of the 10-year follow-up, will depend on composite differences in costs and quality-adjusted survival. ISRCTN46552265.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The use of bilateral internal thoracic arteries (BITA) for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) may improve survival compared with CABG using single internal thoracic arteries (SITA). We assessed the long-term costs of BITA compared with SITA.
METHODS
Between June 2004 and December 2007, 3102 patients from 28 hospitals in seven countries were randomised to CABG surgery using BITA (n=1548) or SITA (n=1554). Detailed resource use data were collected from the initial hospital episode and annually up to 5 years. The associated costs of this resource use were assessed from a UK perspective with 5 year totals calculated for each trial arm and pre-selected patient subgroups.
RESULTS
Total costs increased by approximately £1000 annually in each arm, with no significant annual difference between trial arms. Cumulative costs per patient at 5-year follow-up remained significantly higher in the BITA group (£18 629) compared with the SITA group (£17 480; mean cost difference £1149, 95% CI £330 to £1968, p=0.006) due to the higher costs of the initial procedure. There were no significant differences between the trial arms in the cost associated with healthcare contacts, medication use or serious adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
Higher index costs for BITA were still present at 5-year follow-up mainly driven by the higher initial cost with no subsequent difference emerging between 1 year and 5 years of follow-up. The overall cost-effectiveness of the two procedures, to be assessed at the primary endpoint of the 10-year follow-up, will depend on composite differences in costs and quality-adjusted survival.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
ISRCTN46552265.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30948516
pii: heartjnl-2018-313932
doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2018-313932
pmc: PMC6678045
doi:
Banques de données
ISRCTN
['ISRCTN46552265']
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1237-1243Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : G0200390
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : British Heart Foundation
ID : SP/03/001
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
Trials. 2006 Mar 30;7:7
pubmed: 16573820
Ann Thorac Surg. 2006 Dec;82(6):1966-75
pubmed: 17126093
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008 Mar;135(3):540-5
pubmed: 18329466
BMJ. 2011 Feb 07;342:d40
pubmed: 21300711
Ann Thorac Surg. 2013 Mar;95(3):862-9
pubmed: 23352296
Heart. 2013 Jun;99(12):849-53
pubmed: 23514980
BMJ. 2013 Mar 25;346:f1049
pubmed: 23529982
Circulation. 2014 Aug 12;130(7):539-45
pubmed: 24916209
Pharmacoeconomics. 2014 Dec;32(12):1157-70
pubmed: 25069632
Circulation. 2014 Sep 30;130(14):1146-57
pubmed: 25085960
Ann Thorac Surg. 2016 Feb;101(2):801-9
pubmed: 26680310
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016 Oct;50(4):735-741
pubmed: 27084197
N Engl J Med. 2016 Dec 15;375(24):2359-2368
pubmed: 27771985
N Engl J Med. 2016 Dec 29;375(26):2540-9
pubmed: 27959712
Heart. 2017 Nov;103(21):1719-1726
pubmed: 28450552