Abstract

ASCERT (American College of Cardiology Foundation and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Collaboration on the Comparative Effectiveness of Revascularization Strategies) was a large observational study designed to compare the long-term effectiveness of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to treat coronary artery disease (CAD) over 4 to 5 years.This study examined the cost-effectiveness of CABG versus PCI for stable ischemic heart disease.The Society of Thoracic Surgeons and American College of Cardiology Foundation databases were linked to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services claims data. Costs for the index and observation period (2004 to 2008) hospitalizations were assessed by diagnosis-related group Medicare reimbursement rates; costs beyond the observation period were estimated from average Medicare participant per capita expenditure. Effectiveness was measured via mortality and life-expectancy data. Cost and effectiveness comparisons were adjusted using propensity score matching with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained.CABG patients (n = 86,244) and PCI patients (n = 103,549) were at least 65 years old with 2- or 3-vessel coronary artery disease. Adjusted costs were higher for CABG for the index hospitalization, study period, and lifetime by $10,670, $8,145, and $11,575, respectively. Patients undergoing CABG gained an adjusted average of 0.2525 and 0.3801 life-years relative to PCI over the observation period and lifetime, respectively. The life-time incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CABG compared to PCI was $30,454/QALY gained.Over a period of 4 years or longer, patients undergoing CABG had better outcomes but at higher costs than those undergoing PCI.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.09.078

View details for Web of Science ID 000347406400001

View details for PubMedID 25572503