title: [Stent implantation as initial coronary interventional therapy? A theoretical model on clinical and economical consequences of in-stent restenosis].
abstract: The reduction of acute complications and late restenosis compared to conventional PTCA has led to a rapid increase in stent implantation as initial treatment for coronary stenosis. As a result, in-stent restenosis has become an important clinical and economical problem, especially the diffuse form, which is much more likely to reappear. In order to compare the consequences of initial stenting and initial angioplasty, we developed an analytic model, considering the differences between diffuse and focal in-stent restenosis. The simulation based on the optimized therapeutic proceeding following an elective 1-vessel revascularization of a 60-year-old patient, dealing with probabilities for acute complications and late restenosis taken from the literature and in-hospital costs obtained from 200 elective interventions. In the stent group 71.0% of patients were free of any target lesion-related event, compared to 60.2% in the PTCA group. Catheter reintervention was necessary for 32.1% of the patients initially treated with angioplasty and for 17.6% of the initially stented patients, whereas 7.7% of the stent patients had to undergo elective bypass surgery as final treatment compared to 2.8% in the PTCA arm. Long-term medical costs for initial stenting (6,237 Euros) were 14% higher than for conventional PTCA (5,345 Euros). Taking also into consideration the indirect costs (loss of productivity) for a collective with an employment rate of 50%, the difference between stent implantation (9,067 Euros) and angioplasty (8,581 Euros) is smaller. Initial treatment of coronary stenosis by stent implantation decreases the rate of repeat revascularization compared to initial PTCA, but there is a greater likelihood that elective bypass surgery will become necessary. This difference in following treatment is related to the occurrence of diffuse in-stent restenosis. When calculating the long-term costs stenting still appeared to be more expensive than PTCAA because the savings in following costs can not compensate for the higher primary in-hospital costs. An empirical study which collects cost data in different hospitals as well as in the outpatient setting over 1 year is necessary to confirm this preliminary result.
authors.affiliation: Medizinische Klinik III, Universität Köln. andreas.pfund@nikocity.de
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Pfund
authors.forename: G
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Wendland
authors.forename: F
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Baer
authors.forename: K
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Lauterbach
authors.forename: H W
authors.initials: HW
authors.lastname: Höpp
mesh_terms: D015906:Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary / Q000191:economics*; D001026:Coronary Artery Bypass / Q000191:economics; D003327:Coronary Disease / Q000191:economics* / Q000601:surgery / Q000628:therapy*; D003365:Costs and Cost Analysis; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D008962:Models, Theoretical; D012008:Recurrence; D015607:Stents / Q000191:economics*