Coronary catheter revascularisation is less costly than bypass surgery due to lower direct (medical) and indirect costs (loss of work). Many studies show that the time patients stay out of work following coronary intervention is much longer than necessary. This leads to a considerable increase of indirect costs, which can far exceed the medical costs of the treatment. This prospective randomised study was done to determine whether specific information to patient and family doctor results in an earlier return to work. After catheter revascularisation 100 working patients (mean age 52.4 years) were randomised either to the intervention group (information to patient and family doctor) or to the control group (no specific information about return to work). Four months later 81 patients had returned to their previous jobs (mean sick leave 18.9 +/- 24.8 days) while 19 were still out of work. In the control group, the rate was 79% and the mean sick leave was 16.4 +/- 22.0 days (median 7); in the intervention group 83% had returned to work after a mean of 21.5 +/- 27.4 days (median 10). There was no significant difference between the two groups, neither according to the rate of returned workers nor to the duration of sick leave. In the subgroup of patients with a private insurance (23% of all) 96% started to work again (mean sick leave 5.7 +/- 5.1 days median 3.5), while the rate was 77% in the group of panel patients (mean sick leave 23.7 +/- 27.4 days, median 11). The difference in sick leave between these two groups was highly significant (p = 0.0003). Specific information to the patient and family doctor has no effect on the time patients stay out of work following catheter revascularisation. It seems that the observed delay depends on social and psychological factors that cannot be influenced directly.

The reduction of acute complications and late restenosis compared to conventional PTCA has led to a rapid increase in stent implantation as initial treatment for coronary stenosis. As a result, in-stent restenosis has become an important clinical and economical problem, especially the diffuse form, which is much more likely to reappear. In order to compare the consequences of initial stenting and initial angioplasty, we developed an analytic model, considering the differences between diffuse and focal in-stent restenosis. The simulation based on the optimized therapeutic proceeding following an elective 1-vessel revascularization of a 60-year-old patient, dealing with probabilities for acute complications and late restenosis taken from the literature and in-hospital costs obtained from 200 elective interventions. In the stent group 71.0% of patients were free of any target lesion-related event, compared to 60.2% in the PTCA group. Catheter reintervention was necessary for 32.1% of the patients initially treated with angioplasty and for 17.6% of the initially stented patients, whereas 7.7% of the stent patients had to undergo elective bypass surgery as final treatment compared to 2.8% in the PTCA arm. Long-term medical costs for initial stenting (6,237 Euros) were 14% higher than for conventional PTCA (5,345 Euros). Taking also into consideration the indirect costs (loss of productivity) for a collective with an employment rate of 50%, the difference between stent implantation (9,067 Euros) and angioplasty (8,581 Euros) is smaller. Initial treatment of coronary stenosis by stent implantation decreases the rate of repeat revascularization compared to initial PTCA, but there is a greater likelihood that elective bypass surgery will become necessary. This difference in following treatment is related to the occurrence of diffuse in-stent restenosis. When calculating the long-term costs stenting still appeared to be more expensive than PTCAA because the savings in following costs can not compensate for the higher primary in-hospital costs. An empirical study which collects cost data in different hospitals as well as in the outpatient setting over 1 year is necessary to confirm this preliminary result.