Primary angioplasty is cost-minimizing compared with pre-hospital thrombolysis for patients within 60 min of a percutaneous coronary intervention center: the Comparison of Angioplasty and Pre-hospital Thrombolysis in Acute Myocardial Infarction (CAPTIM) cost-efficacy sub-study.

OBJECTIVES This ancillary study of the Comparison of Angioplasty and Pre-hospital Thrombolysis in Acute Myocardial Infarction (CAPTIM) trial sought to assess the cost-efficacy ratio of primary coronary angioplasty (PCA) and pre-hospital thrombolysis (PHT) in patients suffering from an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (<6 h) close to (<60 min journey) a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) center. BACKGROUND In the CAPTIM study, at 30 days follow-up PCA was as equally effective as PHT with rescue angioplasty if needed. The cost efficacy of these two strategies has not yet been compared. METHODS Data were prospectively collected for 299 patients in three centers. The efficacy analysis was extended at one-year follow-up for those patients. Direct fixed and variable actual costs were assessed with a piggyback data collection. RESULTS The one-year primary end point event-rate (death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and stroke) was not different after PCA or PHT (14% vs. 16. 4%, p = NS). Costs were lower in the PCA group either during the in-hospital period (8,287 vs. 9,170 $, p = 0.0001) and after one-year follow-up, in relation to a higher rate of subsequent revascularizations in the PHT group (49% vs. 23%, p < 0. 01), leading to a longer hospital stay (10 vs. 9.1 days, p = 0. 03). CONCLUSIONS After AMI in patients less than 1 h from a PCI center, PCA is as effective and less costly than a combined strategy of PHT followed by rescue angioplasty.