Cost-effectiveness of coronary clinical intervention: a retrospective analysis

Aim The study was to conduct an economic evaluation of two alternative healthcare interventions from the point of view of allocative efficiency in a healthcare setting. We compared cost-effectiveness of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) in relation to percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) conducted on patients with double vessel disease. Method The approach of the study was more economics-oriented than of a clinical flavor. It was a retrospective study conducted in a tertiary level private hospital in India. We explored the record of patients who underwent these procedures between 2010 and 2013 to obtain the location of the sample frame. Details of sample subjects were provided to the hospital information system to obtain data pertaining to cost. The outcome of the clinical intervention was calculated using the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) approach with literature support and physician consultation. Results The result of the study indicates that PTCA is clinically better and more cost-effective than CABG. The study would have provided more value to the policy makers had it been conducted prospectively through patient contacts. Conclusion Prevelance of a collaborative payer mechanism is advisable to contain the mounting cost of coronary clinical interventions, as long-term effects calls for higher costs.