Cost-effectiveness of the radial compared with the femoral approach in diagnostic and interventionist coronary angiography

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of radial artery access compared with that of femoral in the performing of diagnostic coronary angiography, as well as percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Methods: A decision tree model was constructed in order to determine the costs of two interventions in adult patients with a suspicion of cardiovascular disease. For the effectiveness analysis, an evaluation was made of the major and minor complications in both approaches. The perspective for the costs was the “third party payer” (Colombian health system), and included the medical costs associated with the procedure and the complications, expressed in Colombian pesos (2016, 1 US$ = COP 3.051) Results: The estimated mean cost of the coronary angiography using a radial approach was $1,384,945 and $1,474,543 by the femoral approach. In percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty the weighted cost was $8,037,743 in the radial approach and $8,319,178 in the femoral approach. The radial approach was dominant for major adverse cardiovascular events compared to the femoral one. In both diagnostic and interventionist angiography, the radial approach avoided 0.9% of the major cardiovascular events and 1.6% of major bleeds, but had more minor complications than the femoral approach. Conclusions: The radial artery approach in diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty is shown to be a dominant strategy, on being less costly and having less major cardiovascular adverse events.