Display Settings:


Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Circulation. 2003 Dec 9;108(23):2857-63. Epub 2003 Nov 10.

Cost-effectiveness of coronary stenting and abciximab for patients with acute myocardial infarction: results from the CADILLAC (Controlled Abciximab and Device Investigation to Lower Late Angioplasty Complications) trial.

Author information

  • 1Harvard Clinical Research Institute, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, Mass 02215, USA.



Both stenting and the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor abciximab improve outcomes for patients undergoing primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, the cost-effectiveness of these strategies is unknown.


We performed a prospective cost-utility analysis among US participants in the CADILLAC trial. Patients with AMI (n=1703) were randomized to stenting versus balloon angioplasty (PTCA) and abciximab versus no abciximab according to a 2-by-2 factorial design. Total 1-year costs and lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, measured as cost per quality-adjusted year of life (QALY) gained, were calculated. Compared with PTCA, stenting increased procedural costs by 1148 dollars and initial hospital costs by 1384 dollars (both P<0.001). By 1-year, stenting led to fewer repeat revascularization procedures and reduced follow-up medical care costs by 1215 dollars, such that aggregate costs were similar for the PTCA and stent groups (18 690 dollars versus 18 859 dollars, P=0.75). The cost-effectiveness ratio for stenting versus PTCA was favorable at 11 237 dollars/QALY gained and remained <20 000 dollars/QALY in sensitivity analyses. Compared with standard anticoagulation, abciximab increased initial procedural costs by 1122 dollars (P<0.001). By facilitating accelerated hospital discharge, abciximab reduced length of stay by approximately 0.6 days, offsetting most of the drug costs. These cost offsets were not maintained, however; aggregate 1-year costs for the abciximab group were 1244 dollars greater than for standard therapy (19 389 dollars versus 18 145 dollars , P=0.02). Abciximab was reasonably cost-effective (cost-effectiveness ratio 21 305 dollars/QALY) only if nonsignificant differences in 1-year mortality (3.7% versus 4.3%, P=0.62) were incorporated in the analysis.


Primary stenting is a highly cost-effective treatment for AMI. The cost-effectiveness of abciximab in this setting is uncertain and depends primarily on whether long-term survival is enhanced.

Comment in

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Icon for HighWire
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk