Cardiac rehabilitation versus percutaneous coronary intervention for stable angina pectoris: effects on major adverse cardiovascular events and associated healthcare costs
I De Koning,J M Heutinck,T Vromen,E A Bakker,M F H Maessen,J Smolders,T M H Eijsvogels,J P C Grutters,H M C Kemps,D H J Thijssen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjpc/zwae175.092
IF: 8.526
2024-06-01
European Journal of Preventive Cardiology
Abstract:Abstract Background Stable angina pectoris is commonly treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), but cardiac rehabilitation (CR) may represent a potential alternative effective treatment. Purpose The purpose of the study was to compare the effects of CR versus PCI on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), new revascularisations (PCI and coronary artery bypass grafting), chest pain and associated healthcare costs over a period of 24-months in patients with stable angina pectoris. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study using a database from a Dutch health insurance company. Patients diagnosed with stable angina pectoris between January 2013 and July 2018 who received a treatment of PCI only or CR only were included. To create comparable groups, propensity score matching based on age, sex, respiratory diseases, dementia, diabetes and use of cardiovascular medication was used. Post-treatment MACE (ischemic events, acute heart failure and mortality), new revascularizations (PCI and coronary artery bypass grafting) and chest pain were recorded during 24-month follow-up, whilst we also calculated healthcare costs associated to cardiovascular events and stable angina pectoris treatment. Results Of 4,724 eligible patients, 1,682 patients were matched and included in the analysis. Following propensity score matching, the CR (n=841) and PCI (n=841) group did not differ regarding patient characteristics. We found significantly fewer MACE following CR (n=239 (28.4%)) compared to PCI (n=367 (43.7%), p<0.001) within 24-month follow-up (hazard ratio 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.64). Following CR, significantly fewer PCIs and coronary artery bypass grafts were performed than following PCI (PCI: hazard ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval: 0.79-1.01; CABG: hazard ratio 0.18, 95% confidence interval: 0.04-0.81 ). Prevalence of chest pain did not significantly differ between both groups. Healthcare costs, including treatment and cardiovascular events during follow-up, were significantly higher in PCI (€7386; 95% confidence interval, €7067-€7704) compared to CR (€4468; 95% confidence interval, €4221-€4715, p<0.001). Conclusion We found that CR in patients with stable angina pectoris was associated with significantly fewer MACE and lower healthcare costs compared to PCI during a 24-month follow-up. These findings indicate that in a selection of patients with stable angina pectoris, CR might be a cost-effective alternative to PCI.
cardiac & cardiovascular systems