Cost Analysis From a Randomized Comparison of Immediate Versus Delayed Angiography After Cardiac Arrest

BACKGROUND In patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without ST-segment elevation, immediate coronary angiography did not improve clinical outcomes when compared with delayed angiography in the COACT (Coronary Angiography After Cardiac Arrest) trial. Whether 1 of the 2 strategies has benefits in terms of health care resource use and costs is currently unknown. We assess the health care resource use and costs in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. METHODS AND RESULTS A total of 538 patients were randomly assigned to a strategy of either immediate or delayed coronary angiography. Detailed health care resource use and cost-prices were collected from the initial hospital episode. A generalized linear model and a gamma distribution were performed. Generic quality of life was measured with the RAND-36 and collected at 12-month follow-up. Overall total mean costs were similar between both groups (EUR 33 575 +/- 19 612 versus EUR 33 880 +/- 21 044; P=0.86). Generalized linear model: (beta, 0.991; 95% CI, 0.894-1.099; P=0.86). Mean procedural costs (coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass graft) were higher in the immediate angiography group (EUR 4384 +/- 3447 versus EUR 3028 +/- 4220; P<0.001). Costs concerning intensive care unit and ward stay did not show any significant difference. The RAND-36 questionnaire did not differ between both groups. CONCLUSIONS The mean total costs between patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest randomly assigned to an immediate angiography or a delayed invasive strategy were similar during the initial hospital stay. With respect to the higher invasive procedure costs in the immediate group, a strategy awaiting neurological recovery followed by coronary angiography and planned revascularization may be considered. REGISTRATION URL: https://trialregister.nl; Unique identifier: NL4857.