LOS ANGELES – There are perfectly good reasons for hospitals to offer elective percutaneous coronary intervention without on-site cardiac surgery backup, but saving institutional dollars isn't among them.
That's the bottom line from CPORT-E (Cardiovascular Patient Outcomes Research Team/Non-Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Economic Study), the prespecified economic analysis conducted as part of the landmark CPORT trial.
Bruce Jancin/IMNG Medical Media
Dr. Eric L. Eisenstein
The estimated medical costs per CPORT participant, including the index revascularization and hospitalization as well as costs incurred during 9 months of follow-up, averaged $29,136 in hospitals without on-site coronary artery bypass surgery backup and $25,412 in centers with backup. This 15% difference did not reach statistical significance, Eric L. Eisenstein, DBA, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.
Patients assigned to PCI at hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery actually had a shorter average length of stay; however, their total hospitalization costs ran higher because the study protocol dictated that their post-PCI care take place in the intensive care unit. Patients in centers with no on-site CABG backup also had a significantly higher rate of repeat target vessel revascularization during 9 months of follow-up: 6.5% compared with 5.4% when PCI was performed in hospitals with surgical backup, explained Dr. Eisenstein of Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C.
CPORT was a randomized, prospective, multicenter trial in which the outcomes of elective PCI performed at hospitals with or without on-site cardiac surgery backup were compared for nearly 19,000 participants. As previously reported (N. Engl. J. Med. 2012; 366:1792-802), there were no significant differences between the two patient populations in terms of the co–primary end points of 6-week mortality (0.9% at hospitals without on-site surgery and 1.0% at those with backup) and 9-month major adverse cardiac events (12.1% without versus 11.2% with on-site surgical backup).
Discussant Dr. Mark A. Hlatky noted that 9-month total costs in CPORT-E were 22% higher at low-PCI-volume sites without surgery but only 7% higher at high-volume sites without surgery than at hospitals having on-site CABG backup.
"That’s a very interesting issue: The crucial factor driving costs may not be whether surgery is present on site or not, but the PCI volume at the site. If we have a low-volume site there may be higher costs and more adverse events. Whenever you do something in higher volumes you’re more efficient economically and you may actually do a little bit better job," said Dr. Hlatky, professor of health research and policy and of cardiovascular medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University.
As a matter of health policy, introducing elective PCI at hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery is attractive because it improves access, particularly for patients in rural areas where the nearest medical center with surgical backup may be a considerable distance away. Another consideration is that these centers without on-site surgery may be available for emergency PCI, thereby avoiding the delays inherent in patient transfer to a distant center, he observed.
Discussant Dr. David O. Williams pronounced CPORT "an extremely well-organized and well-conducted trial. It was a large study and the findings, I believe, are quite valid. To be applicable, however, hospitals will need to replicate all the necessary operational and training activities inherent in the trial, which were really quite extensive."
That means not taking money-saving shortcuts, such as eliminating the post-PCI stay in the ICU.
"I do believe this trial is significant and will likely impact the manner in which PCI is performed in the U.S. The performance of PCI in hospitals without on-site CABG surgery, I believe, will be adopted and become the standard of care," predicted Dr. Williams, an interventional cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
The CPORT-E study was funded by Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Eisenstein reported receiving research grants from Medtronic and Eli Lilly. Dr. Williams is the recipient of research grants from medical device companies. Dr. Hlatky reported having no relevant financial interests.