Melsop, Kathryn

Background— Health status is a key outcome for comparing treatments, particularly when mortality does not differ significantly. Methods and Results— Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) randomized 2368 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and stable ischemic heart disease to (1) prompt revascularization versus medical therapy and (2) insulin sensitization versus insulin provision. Randomization was stratified by the intended method of revascularization, coronary artery bypass graft surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention. The Duke Activity Status Index and RAND Energy, Health Distress, and Self-Rated Health scales were assessed at study entry and annually thereafter; linear mixed models were used to evaluate the effect of randomized treatment on these measures. Health status improved significantly from baseline to 1 year ( P <0.001) in each randomized treatment group. Compared with medical therapy, prompt revascularization was associated with significantly greater improvements in Duke Activity Status Index (1.32 points; P <0.001), Energy (1.36 points; P =0.02), and Self-rated Health (1.77 points; P =0.007) but not Health Distress (−0.47; P =0.46). These treatment effects were largely maintained over 4 years of follow-up. The effect of revascularization on the Duke Activity Status Index was significantly larger in the subgroup of patients intended for coronary artery bypass graft surgery compared with the subgroup intended for percutaneous coronary intervention. Health status did not differ significantly on any of the 4 measures between the insulin provision and insulin sensitization strategies. Conclusions— Prompt coronary revascularization was associated with small yet statistically significant improvements in health status compared with initial medical therapy among patients with diabetes mellitus and stable ischemic heart disease. Clinical Trial Registration— http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00006305.

Background— The economic outcomes of clinical management strategies are important in assessing their value to patients. Methods and Results— Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) randomized patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and angiographically documented, stable coronary disease to strategies of (1) prompt revascularization versus medical therapy with delayed revascularization as needed to relieve symptoms and (2) insulin sensitization versus insulin provision. Before randomization, the physician declared whether coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention would be used if the patient were assigned to revascularization. We followed 2005 patients for medical utilization and costs and assessed the cost-effectiveness of these management strategies. Medical costs were higher for revascularization than medical therapy, with a significant interaction with the intended method of revascularization ( P <0.0001). In the coronary artery bypass grafting stratum, 4-year costs were $80 900 for revascularization versus $60 600 for medical therapy ( P <0.0001). In the percutaneous coronary intervention stratum, costs were $73 400 for revascularization versus $67 800 for medical therapy ( P <0.02). Costs also were higher for insulin sensitization ($71 300) versus insulin provision ($70 200). Other factors that significantly ( P <0.05) and independently increased cost included insulin use and dose at baseline, female sex, white race, body mass index ≥30, and albuminuria. Cost-effectiveness based on 4-year data favored the strategy of medical therapy over prompt revascularization and the strategy of insulin provision over insulin sensitization. Lifetime projections of cost-effectiveness showed that medical therapy was cost-effective compared with revascularization in the percutaneous coronary intervention stratum ($600 per life-year added) with high confidence. Lifetime projections suggest that revascularization may be cost-effective in the coronary artery bypass grafting stratum ($47 000 per life-year added) but with lower confidence. Conclusions— Prompt coronary revascularization significantly increases costs among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and stable coronary disease. The strategy of medical therapy (with delayed revascularization as needed) appears to be cost-effective compared with the strategy of prompt coronary revascularization among patients identified a priori as suitable for percutaneous coronary intervention. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifier: NCT00006305.

Background— Coronary bypass surgery (CABG) and angioplasty (PTCA) have been compared in several randomized trials, but data about long-term economic and quality-of-life outcomes are limited. Methods and Results— Cost and quality-of-life data were collected prospectively from 934 patients who were randomized in the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) and followed up for 10 to12 years. CABG had 53% higher costs initially, but the gap closed to <5% during the first 2 years; after 12 years, the mean cumulative cost of CABG patients was $123 000 versus $120 750 for PTCA, yielding a cost-effectiveness ratio of $14 300/life-year added. CABG patients experienced significantly greater improvement in their physical functioning for the first 3 years but not in later follow-up. Recurrent angina substantially reduced all quality-of-life measures throughout follow-up. Cumulative costs were significantly higher among patients with diabetes, heart failure, and comorbid conditions and among women; costs also were increased by angina, by the number of revascularization procedures, and among patients who died. Conclusion— Early differences between CABG and PTCA in costs and quality of life were no longer significant at 10 to 12 years of follow-up. CABG was cost-effective as compared with PTCA for multivessel disease.