Real-World Patient Characteristics and Healthcare Resource Utilization of Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in Japan: A Retrospective Claims Analysis
Author(s)
Schezn Lim, MSc1, Rafael Cavalcante, MD, PhD2, Janarthanan Sathananthan, MBChB, MPH3, Qingxia Hao, MS/MSc4, Jingbo Yi, MPH5, Bruce Crawford, MA, MPH5, Thathya V. Ariyaratne, BEc, BSc, PhD1.
1Boston Scientific Asia Pacific, Singapore, Singapore, 2Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA, 3Boston Scientific, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 4Vista Health, Beijing, China, 5Vista Health, Tokyo, Japan.
1Boston Scientific Asia Pacific, Singapore, Singapore, 2Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA, 3Boston Scientific, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 4Vista Health, Beijing, China, 5Vista Health, Tokyo, Japan.
OBJECTIVES: This study examined patient characteristics and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) of patients receiving drug-coated balloons (DCB) or drug-eluting stents (DES) during percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) for coronary artery disease (CAD).
METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of the Japan Medical Data Vision (MDV) database, comprising claims data from >500 acute hospitals. Patients were included for analysis if they underwent PCI for CAD and received either only DCB (PCI-DCB) or only DES (PCI-DES) for the first time during the same hospital admission as the PCI procedure between 1-March-2014 and 29-February-2024. Descriptive analyses were performed on patient characteristics, procedural characteristics (use of imaging, and lesion preparation devices including scoring balloons [SB], cutting balloons [CB], atherectomy/laser angioplasty devices, intravascular lithotripsy [IVL]), and length and costs of the first hospital admission for PCI-DCB or PCI-DES.
RESULTS: A total of 20,922 PCI-DCB and 188,650 PCI-DES patients were identified. Reasons for PCI included acute coronary syndrome (85.3%) and chronic coronary syndrome (14.6%). Common comorbidities were hyperlipidemia (86.7%), hypertension (83.0%), heart failure (63.9%) and diabetes (60.0%). More PCI-DCB than PCI-DES patients had high bleeding risk (75.6% vs 73.4%, p<0.001). Among first hospital admissions, use of IVUS was more prevalent than OCT in both groups (PCI-DCB: IVUS 76.0% vs OCT 20.3%; PCI-DES: IVUS 86.8% vs OCT 11.9%). A significantly higher proportion of PCI-DCB than PCI-DES patients received lesion preparation devices; this was observed for SB (37.4% vs 18.1%, p<0.001), CB (30.7% vs 10.9%, p<0.001), and atherectomy/laser angioplasty devices (16.8% vs 6.6%, p<0.001), but not IVL (0.21% vs 0.31%, p=0.017). The length and costs of the first hospital admission were significantly shorter and smaller for PCI-DCB than PCI-DES patients (mean±SD: 7.5±15.5 vs 9.3±16.5 days, p<0.001; JPY 1,279,194 vs JPY 1,465,170, p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights differences in HCRU between unmatched PCI-DCB and PCI-DES groups. Future studies may elucidate drivers of between-group differences.
METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of the Japan Medical Data Vision (MDV) database, comprising claims data from >500 acute hospitals. Patients were included for analysis if they underwent PCI for CAD and received either only DCB (PCI-DCB) or only DES (PCI-DES) for the first time during the same hospital admission as the PCI procedure between 1-March-2014 and 29-February-2024. Descriptive analyses were performed on patient characteristics, procedural characteristics (use of imaging, and lesion preparation devices including scoring balloons [SB], cutting balloons [CB], atherectomy/laser angioplasty devices, intravascular lithotripsy [IVL]), and length and costs of the first hospital admission for PCI-DCB or PCI-DES.
RESULTS: A total of 20,922 PCI-DCB and 188,650 PCI-DES patients were identified. Reasons for PCI included acute coronary syndrome (85.3%) and chronic coronary syndrome (14.6%). Common comorbidities were hyperlipidemia (86.7%), hypertension (83.0%), heart failure (63.9%) and diabetes (60.0%). More PCI-DCB than PCI-DES patients had high bleeding risk (75.6% vs 73.4%, p<0.001). Among first hospital admissions, use of IVUS was more prevalent than OCT in both groups (PCI-DCB: IVUS 76.0% vs OCT 20.3%; PCI-DES: IVUS 86.8% vs OCT 11.9%). A significantly higher proportion of PCI-DCB than PCI-DES patients received lesion preparation devices; this was observed for SB (37.4% vs 18.1%, p<0.001), CB (30.7% vs 10.9%, p<0.001), and atherectomy/laser angioplasty devices (16.8% vs 6.6%, p<0.001), but not IVL (0.21% vs 0.31%, p=0.017). The length and costs of the first hospital admission were significantly shorter and smaller for PCI-DCB than PCI-DES patients (mean±SD: 7.5±15.5 vs 9.3±16.5 days, p<0.001; JPY 1,279,194 vs JPY 1,465,170, p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights differences in HCRU between unmatched PCI-DCB and PCI-DES groups. Future studies may elucidate drivers of between-group differences.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-09, ISPOR Real-World Evidence Summit 2025, Tokyo, Japan
Value in Health Regional, Volume 49S (September 2025)
Code
RWD282
Topic Subcategory
Health & Insurance Records Systems
Disease
SDC: Cardiovascular Disorders (including MI, Stroke, Circulatory)