Costs of Transradial Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

• DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.04.014
• Publication Date: 2013-07-18T00:18:55Z
• Authors: Amit P. Amin; John A. House; David M. Safley; Adnan K. Chhatriw...; Helmut Giersiefen; Andreas Bremer; Martial Hamon; Dmitri V. Baklanov; Akinyele Aluko; David Wohns; David W. Mathias; Robert A. Applegate; David J. Cohen; Steven P. Marso
• Keywords: Male; Cardiac Catheterization; Cost-Benefit Analysis; costs; Hemorrhage; outcomes; 03 medical and health sciences; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; 0302 clinical medicine; Cost Savings; Odds Ratio; Humans; Hospital Mortality; Hospital Costs; Propensity Score; catheterization; Aged; percutaneous coronary intervention; Length of Stay; Middle Aged; femoral artery; 3. Good health; Femoral Artery; radial artery; Logistic Models; Models, Economic; Multivariate Analysis; Linear Models; Female; Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

This study sought to evaluate the costs of transradial percutaneous coronary intervention (TRI) and transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention (TFI) from a contemporary hospital perspective.Whereas the TRI approach to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been shown to reduce access-site complications compared with TFI, whether it is associated with lower costs is unknown.TRI and TFI patients were identified at 5 U.S. centers. The primary outcome was the cost of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) hospitalization, defined as cost on the day of PCI through hospital discharge. Cost was obtained from each hospital's cost accounting system. Independent costs of TRI were identified using propensity-scoring methods with inverse probability weighting. Secondary outcomes of interest were bleeding, in-hospital mortality, and length of stay, which were stratified by pre-procedural risk and PCI indication.In 7,121 PCI procedures performed from January 1, 2010, to March 31, 2011, TRI was performed in 1,219 (17%) patients and was associated with shorter lengths of stay (2.5 vs. 3.0 days; p < 0.001) and lower bleeding events (1.1% vs. 2.4%, adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.34 to 0.79; p = 0.002). TRI was associated with a total cost savings of $830 (95% CI: $296 to $1,364; p < 0.001), of which $130 (95% CI: -$99 to $361; p = 0.112) were procedural savings and $705 (95% CI: $212 to $1,238; p < 0.001) were post-procedural savings. There was an associated graded increase in savings among patients at higher predicted risk of bleeding: low risk: $642 (95% CI: $43 to $1,236; p = 0.035); moderate risk: $706 (95% CI: $104 to $1,308; p = 0.029); and high risk: $1,621 (95% CI: $271 to $2,971, p = 0.039).TRI was associated with a cost savings exceeding $800 per patient relative to TFI. Increased adoption of TRI may result in cost savings at hospitals.