Approximately 2% of the total healthcare expenditure in the European Union is spent on coronary artery disease and these expenditures are expected to increase. In order to make rational decisions on resource allocation, clinical and economic outcomes of treatment strategies need to be analysed together. Cost-effectiveness studies provide a framework for making such decisions. The early economic studies comparing balloon angioplasty with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) show that the early cost benefit of angioplasty is lost at long-term follow-up. CABG provides a clinically and economically attractive treatment option in patients with severe coronary artery disease. Later studies with bare-metal or drug eluting stents showed that the higher invasiveness of CABG leads to a longer hospital stay and higher upfront costs. However, at longer follow-up the cost difference is small and clinical outcomes with CABG are better than with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This makes CABG superior to PCI at long-term follow-up, both clinically and economically in patients with extensive coronary disease. Nevertheless, in patients with less complex coronary artery disease, PCI with drug-eluting stents may be preferred on both clinical and economic grounds. Although reduction in stent price does not have a big impact, several other developments may impact future economic comparisons between PCI and CABG. Newer-generation stents will enhance the clinical and economic profile of PCI. Moreover, better clinical decision-making tools and fractional flow reserve will impact the cost-effectiveness equation.
P3591Very long-term follow-up of diabetic patients with coronary artery disease undergoing angioplasty with conventional and drug-eluting stents
