Why the study?
Is the STENTYS self-apposing stent cost-effective compared to conventional stents in patients with STEMI?
Is the STENTYS self-apposing stent cost-effective compared to conventional stents in patients with STEMI?
A health economic model suggests that the STENTYS self-apposing stent is cost-effective or dominant compared to conventional stents for STEMI patients in France over a 5-year horizon.
May inform stent economics in STEMI; leaves open prospective validation before practice change.
The objective was to calculate the cost-effectiveness profile of STENTYS compared to conventional bare and drug-eluting stents (DES). Stents are widely used in the treatment of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, several reports point to the prevailing risk of coronary events such as recurrent myocardial infarction, some of which are related to in-stent thrombosis, possibly explained by poorly apposed stents. 1-year results of the self-apposing stent, STENTYS, are promising regarding the incidence of fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular (CV) events. A model was developed to simulate costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over 1-5 years. In the first 12 months, a decision tree framework was used to define different CV outcomes for STEMI patients receiving a stent. After 12 months, outcomes were categorised in a Markov stage of the model as myocardial infarction (MI), other CV events, revascularisation, and death. Cost of comparative treatments and follow-up in relation to CV events were calculated from the French health insurance perspective. The results indicated, in the base case, over a time horizon of 5 years, that STENTYS bare metal stent (BMS) is dominant (less costly and more QALYs) against conventional DES. The STENTYS DES is dominant compared with conventional DES and very cost-effective versus BMS. The results were robust for different variations in the input variables. This first analysis of the cost-effectiveness of STENTYS showed that it is dominant or very costeffective as compared to conventional stents. Further comparative research and longer follow-up data are needed to expand on these results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Annemans et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: