Resource Utilization, Cost, and Health Status Impacts of Coronary Stent Versus “Optimal” Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty: Results from the OPUS‐I Trial

In the OPUS‐I trial, primary coronary stent implantation reduced 6‐month composite incidence of death, myocardial infarction, cardiac surgery, or target vessel revascularization relative to a strategy of initial PTCA with provisional s tenting inpatients undergoing single vessel coronary angioplasty. The purpose of this research was to compare the economic and health status impacts of each treatment strategy. Resource utilization data were collected for the 479 patients randomized in OPUS‐I. Itemized cost estimates were derived from primary hospital charge data gathered in previous multicenter trials evaluating coronary stents, and adjusted to approximate 1997 Medicare‐based costs for a cardiac population. Health status at 6 months was assessed using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ). Initial procedure related costs for patients treated with a primary stent strategy were higher than those treated with optimal PTCA/provisional stent ($5,389 vs $4,339, P<0.001). Costs of initial hospitalization were also higher for patients in the primary stent group ($9,234 vs $8,434, P<0.01) chiefly because of the cost differences in the index revascularization. Mean 6‐month costs were similar in the two groups; however, there was a slight cost advantage associated with primary stenting. Bootstrap replication of 6‐month cost data sustained the economic attractiveness of the primary stent strategy. There were no differences in SAQ scores between treatment groups. In patients undergoing single vessel coronary angioplasty, routine stent implantation improves important clinical outcomes at comparable, or even reduced cost, compared to a strategy of initial balloon angioplasty with provisional stenting.