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 andlt;$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.
Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam , 2010. Vol. 160, no 2, 322-328 p.