Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention versus medical therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction: real-world and lifetime-horizon data from Taiwan

Although some studies have assessed the cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI), there has been a lack of nationwide real-world studies estimating life expectancy (LE), loss-of-LE, life-years saved, and lifetime medical costs. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of PCI versus non-PCI therapy by integrating a survival function and mean-cost function over a lifelong horizon to obtain the estimations for AMI patients without major comorbidities. We constructed a longitudinal AMI cohort based on the claim database of Taiwan's National Health Insurance during 1999–2015. Taiwan's National Mortality Registry Database was linked to derive a survival function to estimate LE, loss-of-LE, life-years saved, and lifetime medical costs in both therapies. This study enrolled a total of 38,441 AMI patients; AMI patients receiving PCI showed a fewer loss-of-LE (3.6 versus 5.2 years), and more lifetime medical costs (US$ 49,112 versus US$ 43,532). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was US$ 3488 per life-year saved. After stratification by age, the AMI patients aged 50–59 years receiving PCI was shown to be cost-saving. From the perspective of Taiwan's National Health Insurance, PCI is cost-effective in AMI patients without major comorbidities. Notably, for patients aged 50–59 years, PCI is cost-saving.