Background: In patients with coronary artery disease, bare-metal stents (BMS) are considered a safer but less effective treatment than drug-eluting stents (DES). Oral colchicine therapy may compensate for this limitation of BMS. This randomized trial compared the cost-effectiveness of two different revascularization strategies during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods: Between March 2020 and April 2022, 410 patients were randomly treated with PCI with BMS plus colchicine (BMS-CO: 205 patients) or DES (205 patients) The patients in the BMS-CO group received 0.5 mg oral doses of colchicine for 3 months. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACEs), defined as the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or target vessel revascularization (TVR), and the costs of each treatment strategy. The secondary endpoints included the individual components of MACEs. Results: No significant differences were observed in baseline characteristics, and 76% of the patients presented with acute coronary syndromes. The median follow-up period was 36.8 months. Five percent of the patients in the BMS-CO group discontinued study medication. The cumulative incidence of MACEs was not significantly different, with 12.7% in the BMS-CO group and 15.6% in the DES2G group (p = 0.39) as well individual components of the clinical endpoint. The cumulative costs were lower in the BMS-CO group than in the DES2G group (USD 4826.4 ± 2512 vs. USD 5708 ± 3637, p < 0.001). Conclusions: In the 3 years, the DES strategy failed to be cost-saving compared to BMS-CO. However, due to the small sample size, the equivalence in clinical outcomes with both strategies can occur by chance (NCT04382443).
Keywords: acute coronary syndromes; acute myocardial infarction; angiographic score risk; colchicine; drug-eluting stents; stents.