Author + information
- Received July 24, 1995
- Revision received December 21, 1995
- Accepted February 21, 1996
- Published online July 1, 1996.
- Koon-Hou Mak, MBBS∗,
- Mark J. Eisenberg, MD, MPH,
- David S. Eccleston, MBBS,
- Kimberly J. Brown, RN,
- Stephen G. Ellis, FACC, MD and
- Eric J. Topol, MD, FACC1
- ↵1Address for correspondence: Dr. Eric J. Topol, Department of Cardiology, Desk F25, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44195.
Objectives. Our goal was to provide the range of cost savings associated with various catheter reuse strategies.
Background. Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty catheters are commonly reused in several countries outside the United States. However, the cost-effectiveness of such reuse strategies has not been evaluated.
Methods. Three theoretical models of catheter reuse were constructed using the actual costs for treating patients with coronary angioplasty at the Cleveland Clinic. Costs were calculated based on the number of balloon catheters, the amount of contrast agent used and the rates for urgent revascularization that were observed in a prospective Canadian study on catheter reuse.
Results. The median cost to treat a lesion by means of coronary angioplasty using new catheters was $8,800 per patient. In reuse models, the potential to reduce cost depended on the number of balloon catheters used and the rates of urgent revascularization. The “best case” scenario offered a potential savings of $480 (5.5% of total in-hospital cost), whereas the “worst case” scenario resulted in an increased cost of $1,075 (12.2% of total in-hospital cost) compared with the single-use strategy. Cost of the “likely case” scenario was similar to that of the single-use strategy. Sensitivity analyses identified the different rates of revascularization and cost of balloon catheters required to offset potential savings in each strategy.
Conclusions. Although reusing coronary angioplasty catheters may reduce total in-hospital costs, even a modest increase in complications requiring urgent revascularization may offset any potential savings. However, if an increase in complications and procedure time can be avoided, the reuse strategy has significant economic potential and, ultimately, may be extended to other percutaneous coronary interventional equipment.
- Received July 24, 1995.
- Revision received December 21, 1995.
- Accepted February 21, 1996.