Cost effectiveness analysis of drug coated balloon only angioplasty for de novo coronary artery disease

AimsWe aimed to perform a cost analysis of drug coated balloon (DCB)-only angioplasty versus drug eluting stent (DES), for de novo disease of all vessel sizes and all clinical indications.BackgroundDCB angioplasty is an emergent technology for the treatment of coronary artery disease. There is lack of data regarding the cost-effectiveness of DCB-only angioplasty for treatment of de novo coronary artery disease as compared with second generation DES.MethodsWe compared total costs of patients treated with DCB or DES for first presentation of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, or stable angina due to de novo disease between January 1, 2018 and November 15, 2019. We defined total cost as the sum of (1) procedural devices-cost, (2) procedural staff-cost, (3) post-percutaneous coronary intervention hospital stay cost, and (4) antiplatelet regime cost. A cost minimization analysis was performed to compare the costs of DCB and DES.ResultsWe present 1952 all-comer, consecutive patients; 902 (1064 lesions) treated with DCB and 1050 (1236 lesions) treated with DES for de novo coronary artery disease. The cost per patient was estimated to be 9.02 pound more expensive in the DCB group (3153.00 pound vs. 3143.98) pound. However, the cost per lesion treated was calculated to be 15.51 pound cheaper in the DCB group (3007.56 pound vs. 3023.07) pound. The results were consistent irrespective of duration of long-term antiplatelet medications.ConclusionWe have compared the cost-effectiveness of DCB-only angioplasty to DES-angioplasty and showed that the per patient and per lesion results were not different and hence cost should not be implicated in the decision to choose DCB or DES.

Automated summary

This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of drug coated balloon (DCB)-only angioplasty with drug eluting stent (DES) angioplasty for the treatment of coronary artery disease. The results showed that there was no significant difference in overall costs between the two treatment methods.