» Articles » PMID: 11405501

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Intravascular Ultrasound Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Conventional Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Overview
Date 2001 Jun 19
PMID 11405501
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: Investigation of the cost-effectiveness of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to PCI guided by coronary angiography (CAG).

Methods: One hundred and eight men referred for PCI, were randomized to IVUS or CAG guided PCI. After 6 months, the patients were subjected to a study related clinical and invasive follow-up investigation by CAG, IVUS and intracoronary Doppler flow measurements. Incremental costs of IVUS guided procedures and costs of re-interventions were estimated using the Activity Based Costing (ABC) method.

Results: Patients randomized to IVUS guided PCI experienced an improved clinical outcome, with lower angina levels than patients in the CAG guided group. The initial cost of performing IVUS guidance was increased due to extra procedure time, IVUS catheters and slightly more balloons and stents, but fewer patients in the IVUS guided group needed re-intervention. Overall, these savings outweighed the initial cost increase.

Conclusion: Our data suggest that when performing IVUS guided PCI, costs as well as benefits increase. The increased benefits measured as cost savings resulting from less restenosis outweigh the cost increase from performing the IVUS guided PCI as opposed to CAG guided PCI.

Citing Articles

The use of intravascular ultrasound during percutaneous coronary intervention does not reduce all cause in-hospital mortality but doubles the cost, with higher utilization in privately insured patients.

Movahed M, Nathan A, Hashemzadeh M Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej. 2024; 20(3):271-276.

PMID: 39464592 PMC: 11506395. DOI: 10.5114/aic.2024.142231.


Intravascular imaging-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Amin A, Khlidj Y, Abuelazm M, Sayed A, Khan U, Elewidi M BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2024; 24(1):483.

PMID: 39261775 PMC: 11389231. DOI: 10.1186/s12872-024-04105-5.


Comparative Effectiveness of Intravascular Ultrasound Versus Angiography in Abdominal and Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Shimoda T, DOria M, Kuno T, Heindel P, Lepidi S, Hussain M Am J Cardiol. 2024; 223:81-91.

PMID: 38768845 PMC: 11214883. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.05.017.


State-of-art review: intravascular imaging in percutaneous coronary interventions.

Nafee T, Shah A, Forsberg M, Zheng J, Ou J Cardiol Plus. 2024; 8(4):227-246.

PMID: 38304487 PMC: 10829907. DOI: 10.1097/CP9.0000000000000069.


Comparison of Six Different Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Guidance Modalities.

Hu M, Tan J, Yang Y J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2022; 9(10).

PMID: 36286295 PMC: 9604203. DOI: 10.3390/jcdd9100343.