One-year cost-effectiveness and safety of simultaneous hybrid coronary revascularization versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting

Abstract

Abstract OBJECTIVES To evaluate the cost-effectiveness and safety of simultaneous hybrid coronary revascularization (sHCR) compared to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in elective patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. METHODS Cost–utility analysis of a prospective cohort follow-up study comparing per protocol 50 sHCR patients to 50 contemporaneous matched patients undergoing CABG. Resource utilization data and health-related quality of life were collected prospectively, and the cumulative 1-year costs were assessed from the Danish health sector perspective. Effectiveness was measured by quality-adjusted life years using EuroQol-5D. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses using bootstrapping were conducted. Secondary safety measures including early clinical outcomes and freedom from major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 1 year were assessed. RESULTS The clinical trial was discontinued prematurely due to safety reasons after inclusion of 50 patients (24 sHCR; 26 CABG), as the chest tube output and the risk of postoperative pleural effusions requiring thoracocentesis were significantly increased following sHCR compared with CABG. Based on 48 patients available for 1-year follow-up, both treatment strategies were similarly effective (quality-adjusted life year difference between the groups −0.019), with a net cost difference in favour of conventional CABG estimated to be €2173 per patient. Exclusion of 1 outlier patient with chronic renal failure and deep sternal wound infection in the sHCR group resulted in an equalization of the total 1-year costs. CONCLUSIONS At 1 year, sHCR was less cost-effective than conventional CABG and associated with higher chest tube output and a higher risk of postoperative pleural effusions requiring thoracocentesis. Clinical trial registration NCT01496664.