A retrospective cost analysis of angioplasty compared to bypass surgery for lower limb arterial disease in an Australian tertiary health service

Introduction

Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) and surgical bypass (BYP) are treatment options for symptomatic peripheral arterial disease (PAD). PTA and BYP have different clinical outcomes and cost implications. This paper aims to compare hospital‐related costs of PTA and BYP for PAD of the lower limbs in an Australian health service.

Methods

A retrospective cost analysis using clinical and financial data from an urban, tertiary hospital was performed. Patient cohorts were matched to existing published studies and 3‐year findings were calculated. Outcomes measured were mean initial admission cost; mean bed stay; mean complication rate; mean cost of re‐intervention at 12 months and extrapolated mean cost at 3 years.

Results

The mean total admission costs for PTA compared to BYP were $8758 vs. $27,849 (P < 0.001). Patients undergoing BYP were admitted for 10.25 vs. 3.77 nights (P < 0.001). The complication rate was greater in the BYP group for infection only. Re‐intervention was required by 13% of the PTA group and 16% of the BYP group, at a mean cost of $11,798 and $14,728, respectively (P = 0.453). The extrapolated total mean cost at 3 years was higher in the BYP group for patients with both intermittent claudication ($26,764 vs. $11,402) and critical limb ischaemia ($27,719 vs. $12,655).

Conclusions

In this cohort, PTA is a favourable alternative to BYP for PAD of the lower limbs as it is less costly, does not result in a greater re‐intervention rate at 1 year and has been previously demonstrated to have comparable clinical outcomes. Given the limitations of this retrospective analysis, a prospective cost‐effectiveness analysis is recommended.