Background: The CREST trial demonstrated that after successful coronary stent implantation, the 6-month rate of target vessel revascularization (TVR) was similar (15.4% vs 16%, P = .90) for the 2 treatment groups, but restenosis rate was lower (22.0% vs 34.5%, P = .002) in cilostazol-treated patients. We sought to evaluate resource use, cost, and cost-effectiveness of cilostazol in CREST.
Methods: A total of 705 patients were randomized to cilostazol 100 mg twice daily (n = 354) versus placebo (n = 351) for 6 months. Resources included rehospitalizations, medications, and outpatient services. Costs were determined from the Medicare fee schedule. Cilostazol was priced at 1.64 dollars a day. Base-case cost and cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for the entire population using TVR as a measure of effectiveness. Sensitivity analysis was conducted among 526 patients because restenosis data were available only for this patient population. A bootstrap resample approach (5000 samples) was used to obtain confidence intervals for cost differences.
Results: For the entire population, costs of rehospitalizations, concomitant medications, outpatient tests, and physician or emergency department visits were lower during follow-up for cilostazol-treated patients. Overall, total 6-month follow-up costs remained 447 dollars lower for cilostazol (4178 dollars vs 4625 dollars), although this difference did not reach significance (95% CI -1458 dollars to 515 dollars). Cilostazol is likely a cost-saving strategy (similar rate of TVR and lower costs). Sensitivity analysis showed that cilostazol is likely a dominant strategy (lower restenosis rate and costs, 85% dominant, 88.9% <1000 dollars per restenosis averted).
Conclusions: Treatment with cilostazol is likely a cost-saving or dominant strategy in patients with successful coronary bare metal stent implantation. Cilostazol may offer a low-cost alternative to restenosis prevention in patients who do not receive drug-eluting stents.